An open letter to the men of the GOP and those that support them.

Dear GOP,

I feel like we need to get some things straight.  Settle a few issues here. So the first thing that bears mentioning is that women are equally as intelligent as men. This means then when you talk, both women and men will be able to understand what you meant by what you said. If you wish to correct something you said that you didn't mean, do like we were taught as children and apologize like you mean it.

OK, now that we've gotten that out of the way, let’s move on. Can we please stop throwing around the word rape as if it’s just another thing that happens?  Rape is not a natural occurrence, it is not something women should just have to accept they will probably have to deal with, is not just another way to conceive a baby, and it is not a punishment for dressing to promiscuously or for being too drunk.  Rape is a horrible event. The word should make you cringe. The idea should make you shiver.

We would never imply a person deserved to get murdered. We would never imply a person deserved to get assaulted or robbed. We would never imply a person “was asking” for a crime to be committed against them.  And we certainly would never imply that a crime was in any way a gift from God. But we imply these things of rape. Why?

Why do we have, as Tiny Fey puts it “grey -faced [men] with a two dollar haircut, explaining to [us] what rape is”? When is the last time one of them was legitimately worried about getting raped? And if any of their daughters were raped, would they still see it in this backwards way? My guess is no. But I would also hypothesize that if those men do have daughters, none of them would want to confide such a tragic event in their father.

1 out of every 6 women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. I can think of 6 women that I care about without even trying and I would not wish such an event on any of them, though it’s worth noting some of the women I care about have probably already been sexually assaulted. And by some I mean most likely MOST of the women I know have probably been sexually assaulted. Why is this acceptable? Why is rape only being talked about in the context of abortion?

Listen, I don’t love the idea of someone having an abortion any more than you do.  And we can argue until the cows come home about the legality of abortion, this is a worthy intellectual debate. Is a fetus a life or a cluster of cells? BUT when put in the context rape, I will not be the person telling someone they must carry, give birth to, and possibly raise the son of their rapist. I will not be the person to tell someone that yes, they have to watch this baby that they gave birth to slowly but surely look more and more like their father. When I child begins to look more and more like one of their parents this should be a happy, joyous event. For a mother to say to her child, “you look so much like your father” should be a compliment because the mother loves/loved the father. But to say to a child, “you are beginning to resemble my rapist”, that is not a joyous event.  I would not wish that on anyone, nor would I implore them to go through it. If the mother chooses to keep the baby, we should support her. But we cannot and should not require a woman to carry for 9 months the reminder of what is likely one of, if not the, worst event in her life.

More importantly though, your comments force us to realize we need better sex education. How does a grown person not understand that pregnancy cannot be prevented by the body?  How is it that a person has gone 50+ years without encountering a woman who has been raped or assaulted? Surely, once you meet someone who has experienced this you can begin to feel some compassion for her.  You would begin to realize that there is no distinction between “legitimate rape” and what I can only suppose would be “illegitimate rape.” 

Maybe instead of putting so much effort into proving that pregnancy from rape is not such a bad thing, you should put all that effort into preventing rape. Put that effort into raising boys (and girls) to respect other people.  I mean, if rape wasn't so common maybe your ideas for what it is or what it means wouldn't be so offensive.

You are telling the 200,000+ women that were sexually assaulted in the last year that they failed. They messed up, and they deserved this thing to happen to them. This kind of thinking, this kind of talking, this will not help women. This will DISCOURAGE women from reporting sexual assaults and rape to the police (which is already something tough to do). This will not increase the number of rapists that go to jail; currently 97% of rapists never spend a single day in jail. All the while their victims are living in fear of this happening to them again. But now we are double shaming the survivors of rape, we are telling them not only did they deserve this to happen to them, but they better not have an abortion. I mean geez, how much harder could we possibly make it?

Look, if you want to think you can control if someone takes birth control, or has an abortion for other reasons, I will gladly discuss that with you.  But seriously, rape is a big deal. It is not something to be thrown around as if it never happens. It is not something to be talked about in theory. It is not something the woman did wrong; it is something the RAPIST did wrong. And the woman should not be forced to live with that forever.

 Sincerely, 

A "not likely voter" voting against you. 

Debate #2, the winner....debating.

Ok, so the debate. This one was better. And not just because Obama won, but because it was higher quality. Like when you watch football and the game is a good game because it's close until the hail mary pass during the final seconds of the fourth quarter, and you still remember that pass Eli threw years later. I hate when pundits and newscasters say things like, "well will the American people really like how aggressive the candidates were?" Of course they will, people want to hear their candidate say to the other the things they wish they could say. Duh. And besides, what is more exciting than watching to men get so close to punching each other all the while knowing the really really can't?

No it's MY turn!  Photo credit

Now, the first thing is this. I want to apologize to Mitt. I think I've been to hard on him. First, he says he is a job creator, and I  have said he is not. Well, think of all the comedians he created last night? Mitt should be nicknamed Rom-Com. Sometimes I feel like Romney is on the edge of saying something decent, and then he just loses me. Contrary to popular belief, before last night, I wasn't totally sold on Obama. Not that I was voting for Romney, which means I was stuck with voting for Obama, but I was feeling blue (pun intended) about voting for BO. But after last night, after Roms made me feel creeped out and weird and Obama reminded me of why I voted for him in the first place, I kinda feel like yeah, I wanna vote FOR Obama not AGAINST Romney. I call that a win for Obama. Here's why:

Romney:
First, I can't understand why Romney isn't explanatory. This is like beating a dead horse, so I'm really not going to talk about it, but seriously, I'm not dumb. Can you at least PRETEND to treat me like an intelligent person?
Second, we can make all the jokes we want about binders full of women, but really...what is Romney's deal with being stuck in the 90s? (at least he could get a tablet full of women or something). No, but seriously, the number of things that rubbed me the wrong way with what he was saying are infinite. I don't understand. I don't want to be hired out of a binder, on the second round, to fill a quota, but have to leave by 5 to put on an apron and make pot roast for my family. (lest they all go out and buy AK-47s, but thats another issue altogether). The look on the face of the girl who asked the question pretty much says it all, just like "um, ok, whatever". Listen, I work in an environment where the dude/chick ratio is like 90/10 literally. I don't need Romney making it worse and undermining my talents.

Photo Credit

Third, single parent households = assault rifles? I mean, I think I can kind of see the point Mitt wanted to make, but he really really failed. Maybe because he doesn't believe it? Or he isn't allowed to say it? I don't know. But the connection between stable households and violence is a lot more complicated than just marrying up all our kids. "Chicago too violent? No probs, just be rich and white, like me!" <--That's literally how I felt. Not that easy.

It's not that easy. You can't just "be rich" or just "get money" or whatever it is Mitt Romney wants me to do to fix my problems. It takes work and effort and time. And sometimes digging yourself out of a hole sucks, but when it sucks, giving up and going back to way you were doing it before isn't really logical.

And lastly, Romney was sort of annoying. I know that's not a solid reason to not vote for someone, but he was condescending and rude and frustrating. Candy Crowley is far from my favorite talking head, but she can stand up for herself, and after watching her struggle against Romney (and Obama, but we'll get to that) I'm a little more understanding of what Jim Lehrer was going through. When the moderator tells you to shut up, shut up. I mean, I watched his little 2 minute clock turn yellow, then red, then go away, and he wasn't even showing signs of wanting to stop talking. Cool it Romney, this is not playground arguing this is grown up arguing, we have rules.

Obama:
So, the economy. Everyone keeps asking me if I'm better off than I was four years ago, and why yes, yes I am. Four years ago I was 21, I had no or expensive health insurance, I had a mediocre job and was told my parents are rich enough to help me pay for school so deal. Today, I have a better, more secure job, it comes with health care (that I can wait to use because I'm not 26) and a good 401(k). Also, those pell grants Obama keeps talking about...used 'em. Couldn't afford college without it. (This "oh just ask your parents for money" thing Romney says...not really plausible. My parents are not wealthy car company executives and politicians, they could not pay for 4 kids to go to college out of their pockets). So economically speaking, it doesn't really make any sense for me to not vote for Obama. And I'm sure there is a 21 year old kid out there that is in the same place I was 4 years ago, that needs Obama to stay.

Libya. Oh Libya. I can't believe Obama, who killed Bin Laden...wait what did Obama do in Libya? Right, Obama did nothing. I mean, for better or worse, what did Obama do? Nothing. Why? Who knows. What's going on? I don't know. This was bothering me. Obama is supposed to be strong on foreign relations, and seemingly he blew it. Well, as I read into the story, and as the debate unfolded, I'm no less frustrated with the fact that our embassy was attacked. But I'm glad Obama was able to answer some questions. Here is what i came away with: 1) who cares if he knew it was (or labeled it) an act of terror or not? Either way, he did call it that, but I don't know why that matters so much. Somebody died. 2) Mitt politicized it, Obama wanted the facts and justice.  Honestly, I'll take the facts and justice over politics. Like I said, I don't care if he told us it was terror or not terror. I don't care if he called it the boogey man. Find who did it, and put them to justice without starting a war. Obama already killed Bin Laden, and ended the war in Iraq, so his track record for being able to handle the Libya thing is good. If somebody wants to tell me (because democrats and republicans both seem to care) why it matters if he called it an act of terror (or terrorism, which are the same thing unless you're 12) or not the day it happened, please do, because....really who cares?  What matters is justice and not starting more wars.

The real kicker for me though when Obama was talking though was Guns. I hate guns. That is an understatement. There is no word to describe how I feel about guns. If it were up to me, no private citizen would own a gun, ever. Because...why do you need one? That is not realistic, which is why I'm not in charge of your gun collection. After the gazillions (scientific, i know, but that's how it feels isn't it?) of mass killings in this country, it really bothers me that no politician can just forget about his political party and stand up and speak out against guns, or for gun control. And for someone who is so often "accused" of being "leftist" Obama is really quiet about gun control. And so it began, that person asked about the assault rifle ban, and I was literally ready to just give up and not vote and be done with it. Maybe move to Canada. So here are the key things I got from Obama:
~ Don't remind me that you didn't go to Wisconsin to console the victims in the Sikh Temple by saying Aurora was the most recent place you had to console anyone. Bad plan. That being said,
~Obama did say he doesn't think military grade weapons need to be in the hands of private citizens.
~Then he also went on to the part that really sold me. He did not insult my intelligence, but rather reminded me why I voted for him in the first place. He reminded us all that while banning all guns is the quick and dirty "solution", the actual the solution is getting to the root of the problem. Finding out why we have a culture of violence, ensuring every child has access to a good education. (I think education can solve so many problems: decrease abortion rates, decrease hate crimes, decrease discrimination, decrease violence, decrease unemployment, etc). Making sure criminals are getting guns, and making sure people with mental illnesses aren't getting guns. (sidenote, while its important that both of those categories don't have guns, it's important that those with mental illnesses aren't seen as criminals).
~I'll vote for him, but I'll know he won't really follow through with it. At least I'll know he won't give MORE people guns...which is what Romney will do.
So Obama sold me on the gun issue, sort of.

What Obama really did was sell me on his ability to lead. The quick and dirty solutions sound good when things are falling apart but the best thing to do is stop and think and create the best solution, even if it takes a little longer. If it will make things more stable and less likely to fall apart. I would rather spend 8 years building a brick house than 4 years building a straw house. And while Obama was also kind of rude, he actually was way less arrogant than he usually is, maybe because Romney was so so so arrogant. And Obama was smart enough not to stand in front of the time counter thing, I mean that's tiny but still, I couldn't see when he was out of time. So I was less annoyed. Small victories lead to big wins.

"They" are saying the win goes to Obama, but barely. "They" also say that style matters more than substance. Not only did Obama win decisively, he said to Mitt some of the things I wanted to say to Mitt. We saw Mitt get questions asked to him directly and he just completely ignored them, really? Come on, man. Maybe Obama did the same thing, but he didn't avoid the questions we (or at least I) really needed answered, and Mitt DID avoid the questions I needed answered to (though I couldn't vote for him) at least see why voting for him would be an option.

(I'm hitting publish without checking for typos, sorry).

Hate Crimes: Longer than a status, in honor of Matthew Shepard (and James Byrd Jr)

I am glad you've decided to read this. I hope you read the whole thing. Nothing is more frustrating than when someone disagrees with something they refuse to listen to. Have you watched the John Corvino videos on Upworthy? You should. This is because I can only aspire to deliver my arguments as well and calmly as he can. Also, the ends of his videos are funny. I'm having a hard time finding the whole playlist of videos so here is just one: John Corvino: Is homosexuality unnatural?

To the point. There are some debates that everyone knows are going on and that are so emotional we generally don't engage in "at the dinner table". (or at work, or wherever it is you need to maintain a polite conversation). Abortion, capital punishment, the 1%, marriage equality are a few of these topics. Most of America has an opinion on one or more of those topics and that opinion is very very important to them and is an opinion they arrived at with emotion, not just thought. We also tend to surround ourselves with the people that we have things in common with and because of that we spend a lot of time with people that share our opinions on the big issues. (for some reason I feel like, and this is just personal anecdotal evidence, that even surrounding ourselves with people that share our opinions the abortion thing is STILL split pretty 50/50, weird and possibly not true, like I said just based on my personal experience).

That being said, being around people with whom we share so many opinions it's really easy to start to assume "everyone" feels one way, except of course the crazies. It's easy to forget that completely dismissing the counterpoint is pretty desctructive to our mixing-bowl of a society. It's easy to forget that the counter point might not just be some crazy bigot but might actually be a person with thoughts and opinions just like you. This goes for liberals AND conservatives. I feel like a conservative person might be reading this and saying "yeah those liberals need to start seeing things from my perspective" or a liberal person saying the same about a conservative person. Nope, EVERYONE needs to see things from the opposite viewpoint, that's how we make progress. Why did this even come up? Why did I all of a sudden decide to stop and lecture you about walking a mile in a pair of Toms (or fancy black dress shoes, I don't know what shoes conservatives wear stereotypically...ideas welcome)?

Because October 11th was National Coming Out day and while I assume even pro-traditional marriage folks would be for that, I never stopped to ask, maybe they aren't. And because Oct 12th was the anniversary of the death of Matthew Shepard and I found out that not everyone is for hate crimes laws, and at first I got mad, it took full day before I stopped and asked how that could be. Because Romney is leading in the polls, which means somebody is actually voting for him, there must be a reason, 50% of the country is not crazy lunatics. (also, 50% of the country is voting for Obama...not crazy lunatics).  But I can't write about all of it in one post, so I'm going to focus...this is about hate crimes laws. This is why some people aren't for them (for the hippy kids) and why I think they are really really important (for the conservative people). By the way, remember the movie Cars? And the two cars? The Army car and the Hippy car? This reminds me of that, they were friends.

So hate crimes. I guess we should start by defining what a hate crime is, so we are all on the same page. Here is the definition straight from google, when I say "hate crime" assume this is what I mean: A crime motivated by racial, sexual, or other prejudice, typically one involving violence. Matthew Shepard isn't the only victim of a hate crime, and gay people aren't the only victims of hate crimes. Hate crimes aren't only committed by adults in alleys, they aren't only committed by people that have been hateful their whole lives. Much like with rape, hate crimes can and do happen everywhere, all the time, constantly. Bullying, while not a hate crime, is (for lack of better terminology) the gateway drug to a hate crime, which is why bullying is really really bad. The one thing I found we all agree on is that innocent people should not be getting killed, so that's good.

So why be against hate crimes laws? It's a fair question, and one that a lot of people are wondering. So I asked, with great trepidation, because I couldn't imagine a good answer to that question. So the first thing that I heard that really stuck out was the million dollar term "special treatment" I don't mean to take away from the argument by taking it down to two words, there is more to it if you keep reading. But we have all heard the phrase "special treatment" before in regards to a lot of things. In this case the question is, why should blacks/gays/women/other minorities receive special treatment when it comes to murder/abuse/assault? That is a fair question. Killers of straight, white, middle-aged men should also be put to justice, we shouldn't let them run free just because their victim wasn't a minority. The unfortunate truth is that we don't live in a perfect world. White men aren't often killed because they are white, or male.

If we lived in a perfect world we wouldn't need anti-discrimination laws. There would never have been affirmative action to fight about. The Lilly Ledbetter Act would never have needed to be passed. But we don't live in a perfect world. We live in a world where if someone is black, they are probably stealing. If someone is gay (or seems like maybe they might be kinda gay) they are probably going to hit on you or turn you gay. We live in a world where people are afraid that the minorities will "take over" and become the majority and it's scary to think that you might end up being the minority. And in our world, when somebody kills a gay kid, they don't always have to go to prison for it. When somebody kills a black kid, they can cry self defense, because he was probably in a gang anyways. We live in a world where the "gay panic defense" is a real thing. I think the term "special treatment" has negative connotations. But, yes, minority groups need a little bit of extra protection to make sure that 1) they aren't killed because of who they are and 2) if violence is inflicted upon them, justice is done.

The other piece of the argument was that people get killed for all sorts of ridiculous things. There are people out there that are full of hate and will kill people because they are too short, or wear glasses, or drive to slow, or are wearing the wrong jeans. Should we add all those things to the list of hate crimes? No, probably not, but I mean if killing people with glasses becomes something that's happening A LOT then yes, we should.  See, the hate crimes laws thing came about because too many people were getting killed for who they were, it didn't come out of thin air. It was not random. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr Act is named after two people who were killed, Matt was gay and James was black, they were killed for those reasons. It's not called the "we think someone might get killed someday" law. It's not something that used to happen and doesn't happen anymore.

Lawrence King was murdered at age 15 by a classmate because he was gay in 2008 (might have been 2009). And remember the whole shenanigans over Trevon Martin? (that might be a bad example because I didn't follow the case and have no idea how it turned out).  But the point is kids and adults are still today getting beaten, abused, bullied, and killed because of who they are. No, they don't deserve more rights to not be murdered than the white man in a suit, but they are more likely to get murdered than him, so they deserve more protection. Hate crimes laws won't stop hate crimes. It will put more people behind bars for doing it, it will build tolerance, and it will hopefully deter hateful people from being violent towards the groups of people they hate. (if you hate someone...just blog about it, don't kill them).

Listen, the point is it's first important that we understand that nobody WANTS people to get murdered. (if you do please seek help). But it's also important to recognize that minority groups do really get killed for being that minority. It is not something people say, it's not something that used to happen in 1998. I saw a picture on facebook of a man wearing a shirt that said "Romney 2012, put the white back in the white house" (vote for Romney if you want, but that shirt is racist and that shouldn't be the reason). Racism, homophobia, sexism these things are still out there. What's really interesting to me is that (again, anecdotally) people seem the least willing to protect gay people with hate crimes laws. If these laws were to protect just women and racial minorities would you be more supportive?

Watch this video.

The Rudest of all Americans: A Debate Analysis.

I heard this real snippet on NPR today.
Anchor: it (I missed the beginning so idk what 'it' is) shows that most people liked what Obama was saying when he was talking. But Romney won the debate. How is it that Romney won if most people like what Obama had to say?
Guest (whose credentials I don't know): Well, in a debate you have to also factor in stylistic points. And that is where Romney won. Obama was looking down at his podium more, while Romney was looking at his opponent and the moderator.

Really? Is that what this has come to? Romney won because he looked down the podium less? Here is a real (because obviously my thoughts are the most important :-) analysis of the debate:

First of all, neither guy really succeeded. I'm sorry, but in a debate, you should respect the moderator and not force him to let you have the last word or keep talking. Do not go over your time, do not be ridiculous. Do not get into a childish "yes you do" "no I don't" banter. Seriously, you are supposed to be the next (and/or) current president of the united states of america. You can't have a more intelligent debate than I had with my brother when I was 5 and he was 7 about whose fault it was that we were in trouble? That is ridiculous. Advantage:  Nobody. Epic fail.

Second of all, obviously Mitt Romney was flailing. He was making stuff up, agreeing and simultaneously disagreeing with everything the president said. He was trying to court voters who are going with Obama, but still keep his opinions the same, while having opinions that people like. What? That sentence makes about as much sense as Romney did last night.
I'm going to cut taxes for everyone, but leave everyone's taxes the same and not increase revenue. And this will make the deficit go away. Look, usually I leave the economics to the experts. I'm not fond of economics, it's complicated and nuanced and I'd rather stick to issues that impact our everyday lives. But even I know basic math. Here is a hypothetical explanation of what Romney is saying.
Romney says, we have a deficit and to solve it we have to decrease income from section A (taxes) but NOT increase revenue from anywhere else. Negative number minus other number does NOT equal a positive number. -5 - 10 = -15 NOT +1500.  He has said his plan is revenue neutral, which since he won't give details I have to assume means no extra or less revenue. I mean, I have a bank account. I can decrease spending and yes that helps, but I also HAVE to increase my revenue in order to quickly solve any problems. ESPECIALLY if I'm in the hole. If I'm at -$15 and I stop spending money I will remain at -$15 forever, unless I find someway to bring in money.
But Romney also wants to cut taxes across the board for everyone. Ok, so if I'm at -$15 and then I take less hours at work, how is that going to help?   Answer: It's not. In order to decrease a debt you have to both decrease spending and increase revenue. As with any budget, you have to decide what is worth spending money on and what is not.
We all have some experience with budgets. Whether it be accidental or planned. We all have to figure out how to at least break even if not make money.  And when we make our budgets we start with the basics. You HAVE to pay for the roof over your head, whether it's rent or mortgage. You have to pay for the food that you eat, whatever that may be. You have to pay for your utilities and your transportation to and from work. You have to pay your medical bills. After you've taken care of the essentials, you look at what else you want that you have money for. And make priorities: cable/internet, going out for entertainment, your hobby, your fun purchases etc. I feel like Romney doesn't get that, and maybe it's because he has never had a budget of his own before. Maybe he is worried about his own special interests more than getting rid of the debt. Who knows, but he doesn't seem to understand that to balance a budget you have to take ALL those things into consideration. Not just cut PBS, cut taxes, cut cut cut cut cut. Some things are worth spending money on. But you also have to figure out how to bring IN revenue to pay for the things worth paying for. This really bothers me. If Romney's economic plan is so non-sensical that 1) I understand how it won't work and 2) care than there is a serious problem.
This is not to say Obama's plan is perfect, but if these are my only two choices I will go with the guy that understands how a budget works.  Advantage: by a hair...Obama.

Third, the most frustrating thing uttered all night was said by Mitt Romney. He quoted the declaration of independence and said that everyone is endowed by our creator with the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. Ah, something Mitt and I agree on. Oh, nope wrong. He means that we are all endowed by our creator with the unalienable right to pursue the happiness that the GOP decides is acceptable. We are not to pursue happiness if it conflicts with the morals of the GOP. (they like to call these "christian" morals, but I beg to differ, I think christianity is better than the GOP). I mean, I'm not pro-choice. But I mean, Mitt set himself up for the "what about women that want to pursue happiness via not going through with pregnancy?" argument. But a good point is, abortion aside, what about women that want to pursue happiness via quality health care, I mean there is more to women's health than abortions, and the GOP wants to effectively put women's health as a side issue. What about people that want to pursue happiness via getting married, or having a surogate mother for the their child, or want a child but have to do it via AI? What about all the minorities that want to pursue happiness by being allowed to actually do things, and not being purged from voter lists or forced to prove their citizenship every few weeks? Mitt is preventing happiness galore. Ah, but the 1% will be happy having more money than they had before. While the rest of us get poorer and poorer and pay more and more taxes. Will the 1% even notice an extra $40 in their bank accounts? A regular person would, a lot. I'm just saying, if Mitt really wanted to protect a persons right to pursue happiness I would vote for him in a second. But again, Obama is more likely to make sure the poor have food and shelter, and to protect minority groups. Advantage: Obama.

And lastly was the rock-star quote from Obama that somehow got over-looked. "Do you think he won't tell us because they [his policies] are too good? They will help the middle class too much?" Exactly. At least Bill and Obama kinda broke down their ideas. Mitt won't explain how without obamacare I will still be protected. No matter how you slice it, I will be negatively effected by a repeal of Obamacare. Pre-existing condition: check. Female: check. floating in some limbo between poor enough to get assistance and rich enough to be able to afford stuff: check. With Obamacare: my migraines are "cured" and I was able to acquire a $1000 medication for $25. Without Obamacare: I have to get insurance within 3 months of my 26th birthday or who knows what will happen. (disclaimer: because of my job, having insurance post 26 won't be difficult, but not every 20-something works for a company that can afford great benefits and before I was let back onto my dad's insurance, I had crappy insurance because I didn't have this job yet). I will not vote for someone who wants to repeal Obamacare unless they give a good reason why and an explanation of how to replace it so people don't lose everything. Advantage:  Obama (except it's kinda arrogant how much he likes the term Obamacare, but who wouldn't like to have such a historic health care reform named after them?)
Romney won't explain his tax plan, will my taxes go up or stay the same? If the rich don't have a tax increase and poor don't have a tax increase where is your revenue coming from? Which loopholes are you closing? It is the home ownership tax deduction? Is the the educational tax deduction? Is the the child credit? It is something that Mitt doesn't want us to know.

 Here is the list of things Mitt Romney doesn't want us to know:
That he got a tax return probably. And got it by donating to his OWN charitable organization.
How he is going to solve the debt problem.
His tax plan for the country. And his budget.
What he will put in to replace obamacare.

I say again, is it because those things are TOO good? Advantage: Obama

So yeah, style goes to Romney. And the ability to yell and be annoying until the other guy doesn't even wanna debate you goes to Romney. But actual presidential policies and worthiness of being the leader of America....Obama is the better choice. Winner...maybe if he hadn't been so rude to the moderator. But definitely the better choice.