That's a pretty biased article. For instance:
"The Washington Post’s in-house fact checker tore Romney’s claim that he will create 12 million jobs to shreds. The Post wrote that the “‘new math’” in Romney’s plan “doesn’t add up.”
Well, the Washington Post is known for being one of the most left leaning "news"papers in America. And they just say it "doesn't add up". They don't prove it.
Here's another fact check link that shows different point of view:http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2012/1017/Debate-fact-check-Romney-stumbles-on-energy
So for every link you post with fact checks, I can probably post one with an opposite "opinion". This points out a bigger problem of needing fact checkers for the fact checkers. The media is unreliably biased.
The point is, this is probably the easiest election choice in history. The two candidates view points on where they'd like to take the country are fundamentally different. In my mind, it boils down to who do I think is more capable and has a better track record of success? A lawyer from the most corrupt city in America or a successful business man.