George Zornick | The Nation

During tonight’s debate, the real difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on Afghanistan will be somewhat hard to discern. The president adopted a strategy in 2009 to target “terrorist” safe havens in Pakistan and surge an additional 33,000 troops into Afghanistan, which have now been drawn down. Obama plans to complete a total drawdown at the end of 2014, though his administration is apparently already negotiating to maintain some kind of troop presence there past that date.

Romney, too, supports an American withdrawal from Afghanistan at the end of 2014, and has repeatedly said that’s the “right timetable.” He and Paul Ryan have still criticized Obama on his plans, hitting the president for engaging in a supposedly “politicized” removal of surge troops and for not listening enough to military commanders—but substantively, they seem to share the same plans as the president. Foreign policy experts are still stumped as to how Romney’s plans are any different, if they are at all.

It’s unusual that Romney and Obama have essentially agreed on a major policy matter, but what’s even odder is that their agreement is so far out of line with the American people. Under either president, the end of the war in Afghanistan wouldn’t come for two more years—and the public clearly wants out now.

Ezra Klein has an important piece this morning, detailing what he believes the administration’s strategy is for dealing with the fiscal cliff after the election (assuming, of course that President Obama is gearing up for a second term, not a new presidential library).

In short, according to Klein, the White House believes it has major leverage heading into this showdown with Republicans. Since inaction means automatic spending cuts that slash the defense and non-defense budgets equally, but exempt Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security (Republicans don’t like this) and also the full expiration of the Bush tax cuts (Republicans really don’t like this), Obama will use that leverage to get a big bipartisan deal that not only executes his tax and spending preferences but much more. Writes Klein:

The administration hopes this deal will include more than just deficit reduction. They also see it as a vehicle for infrastructure investment and tax reform. They think there’s some chance that parts of the American Jobs Act, like the hiring tax credits, could sneak through the door, too. There’s even talk of using it to address climate change, though everyone agrees that’s unlikely. Whatever ends up in the final deal, there’s little doubt that it will be a big deal, and it’s likely to come together fairly quickly in the first year. The White House—and the expiring tax and spending provisions—won’t give Republicans any other choice.

Perhaps the most famous moment to come out of Tuesday night’s presidential town-hall style debate in Hempstead, New York, was when moderator Candy Crowley fact-checked Mitt Romney on the spot on Libya. (Video here). 

But that isn’t the only time the Republican candidate said something completely false—it was perhaps just the most obvious. Here are the seven biggest lies Romney told:

ROMNEY: “We have fewer people working today than we had when the president took office.”

On the heels of last night’s vice-presidential debate, Paul Ryan’s Democratic opponent for his congressional seat wants a second round—while he sits Biden’s chair.

Rob Zerban is facing a tough road to unseating Ryan, who won Wisconsin’s 1st district with over 68 percent of the vote in 2010—and the district has since been reapportioned to include even more Republicans.

Yet, the district is still fairly purple—Obama narrowly won it in 2008, and the redistricting only added a couple Republican points. Zerban has far outraised any other Ryan challenger over the years, though he still lags far behind Ryan in that category.