Benghazi is such a fucking dud of an issue. And Obamacare is too until they can actually mount something that is even vaguely reminiscent of a substantive policy issue in regards to its implementation that isn't "This is big government takeover of a broken and vital industry!" When Romney argued in the first debate that his non-specific plan to fix health care while repealing Obamacare had all of the good things of Obama's plan with none of the big government pitfalls -- which was obviously false -- just showed their problems.
This is a meaningless observation, but personally I really think that the Romney momentum might have had a slight chance of continuing if he and Ryan had any idea how to follow up on the vague, meaningless nonsense that Romney peddled effectively in the first debate. He certainly convinced people in Denver that he had enough confidence to lay out goals, but there was no specifics to back it up. Perhaps Obamacare is terrible, but it's actually a well-documented approach to health care reform. "The private industry is better than the federal government" is simply a philosophy, not actual policy. How -- besides having blind faith in the invisible hand of the free market -- will that actually work versus what Obama has actually passed?
How the fuck was that tax cut going to work? "We'll roll up our sleeves and come to a bi-partisan agreement" is certainly an enviable approach, but what is one specific solution that a bi-partisan group might come up with?
Sorry, just kind of rambling at this point.
