David Brooks, "The Opening Statement": No Mention of the 2,000th American Soldier Who Died This Weekend in Afghanistan

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Opening Statement" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/opinion/brooks-the-opening-statement.html), David Brooks suggests an opening statement for Mitt Romney for tomorrow's presidential debate. If Romney follows the advice of Brooks, he will lose the 2012 election. It's that simple.

On the other hand, if Romney follows my advice, he will win. But there's no chance of that happening.

Read Brooks's opinion piece. Now read it again. What's missing? Simple.

This past weekend we witnessed a tragic milestone: The 2,000th American soldier died in the war in Afghanistan, which was escalated by Obama. In addition to this heartbreaking loss of life, the US is spending $6 billion every month on this boondoggle.

There is no mention of Afghanistan in David's op-ed. There will be no mention of Afghanistan in the opening statements of Romney and Obama during the debate.

If Romney wants to win this election, he needs to tell the American people that he will end America's presence in Afghanistan within six months of taking office. But he won't do that. It would antagonize many of his conservative backers, notwithstanding the fact that it is the right thing to do. Romney would rather lose gracefully to Obama.

Regarding Medicare, Brooks is correct: Romney needs to treat Americans as adults and explain in no uncertain terms that the rising cost of medical entitlements, if unaddressed, will bankrupt the US. Brooks, however, does not mention that Medicare fraud costs the US $90 billion per year. It's time to declare war on this crime, which is draining the lifeblood from the country.

And then there is no mention by Brooks of the necessity to reform Wall Street, which is witnessing the departure of individual investors as algorithms and computerized trading have come to rule the roost. It's time to take this unfair edge away from the hedge funds and to allow stock markets to again serve the needs of innovative start-ups, hungry for seed money, which offer the promise of sustainable employment. But will Romney demand the reinstatement of the Uptick Rule and Glass-Steagall, thereby antagonizing many of his donors? Not a chance.

Given the disastrous state of the US economy and Obama's unlimited number of foreign policy failures, this is Romney's election to lose.

Yes, he is losing it.