By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Presidential debate
Placeholder Image

Dear Editor: Governor Romney debated better Wednesday night than President Obama did. Clearly, the president was stumped by the governor's latest recreation of himself. The governor started with the proposition that nothing he had said to date was his real position and that only what he said Wednesday night was true. For me, that presents a credibility problem, but how do you debate against it? The governor also said that, for the most part, he would do exactly what the president had done except all of the laws Congress passed under him would be perfect, unlike the flawed laws passed under the president. The governor obviously knows some other Congresses than the ones I have observed all my life. I have never known one that wrote clear, simple laws. The governor did have four positions different from the President's: 1) He would not support renewable energy; 2) He would cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans; 3) He would not eliminate any waste or fraud from Medicare; and 4) He would repeal affordable healthcare.

He said he would let the states pass their own affordable healthcare acts. One, Massachusetts, has passed a universal health insurance law since the nation was founded. No other state has. Does he have some inside information that the other 49 suddenly would pass such laws? For anyone who believes that debates should be based on fiction rather than records, Governor Romney is your man. For me, I depend on what people have said and done over time rather than what they say under the spot light.

Chris Roesel