Overcoming Bush Finger Pointing: We Teach People How to Treat Us (Poll)

Lisa... the problem is that a lot of Bush's people still blame ex-Pres Clinton till this day. This is how it is. Some Reps are still blaming FDR. Some Dems are still blaming Reagan. Life of an ex-Pres always gets it, no matter how long ago.

It is clearly all Adams fault ! If he wouldn't have bit that stinkin apple NONE of this would be happening ! (sorry I couldn't go further back for the blame game !)

"I cannot agree more…Bush was horrible.":)

I'm so glad that we have a President now who doesn't finger point and blame others Like Bush Used to do all the Time. I'm so glad we have a President that doesn't bow down to our enemies and stands up for our allies. I'm so glad we have a President who doesn't allow Lobbyists and special interest groups to manipulate Legislation Like Bush used to do. I'm so glad we have a President who got a Nuclear disarmament agreement with Russia unlike all the Previous Presidents including Bush. I'm so glad we have a President that believes the environment and repairing Global Warming is more important than jobs and the economy and Amercian citizens financial well being unlike Bush. I'm so glad we have a President that recognizes the importance of making friends with communist dictators like Chavez and Castro as opposed to being against communism and supporting democracy like Bush. I'm so glad that we have a President who wasnt afraid to sign into law a bill that will make it illigal for me not to buy something and will get fined or go to jail if I dont. And last but not least I'm glad we have a President that Has won the Nobel Peace Prize and is more worried about the Worlds perception of him and what he is doing for the World and pushing for an Internationl Government then believing the Foolish idea that his First responsiblity is protecting the United States and defending the Constitution and American Citizens and making sure America is Secure and Safe.

Obama and gang constantly point and blame Bush and the Republicans. Was his theme since election until now. Where have you been?

But we are now 18 months into an adminisitration that promised he would change all that. If you didn't like the direction with Bush, how has that direction changed with Obama from your perspective? I truly want to know...I want this thread to be a learning opportunity for both sides.

Well here are some things that would have NEVER happened under Bush.

* 20 Billion in escrow from BP (he was an oil guy and I just don't see that happening)

* Movement of Gay Rights Issues (we can say for a certainty that this is the opposite of Bush)

* Health Care Bill - I don't like it in the form that it's in but it is better than the status quo and again isn't something that Bush dealt with at all.

*Energy - This hasn't been dealt with yet, but I'm sure it's on the radar considering present day circumstances. I don't think he'll do a liberal bill so it most likely will end up like health care. A mangled mess that still is better than the status quo and definitely less oil friendly than Bush was. ( Notice it's summertime and we aren't seeing $4+ dollars a gallon. Hmm odd isn't it?)

* Middle Class Taxes - Like it or not they are less for the middle class than they were under Bush

* Security - Like it or not most of our major buildings are still in tact.

Those are the positives. The negatives are:

*Corporatism - There's too much corporate influence in his cabinet. Way too much. While he might not have been able to stop the BP incident. He sure as hell could have changed the regulators within days of his arrival. This problem is also what affected the health care bill. I'll admit he's still tied too close to industry to see the type of change that's needed.

*Too Weak - The one thing I liked about Bush was that it didn't matter how dumb the idea was he got what he wanted. Obama could at least try half as much.

From where I sit, Republicans should be giving Obama a 100% approval rating, but they aren't, because they didn't like Bush either.

You don't believe that. I know you don't. I decided to go back .....waaay back to 1/2009 to see what our conservative friends were saying. I wish I could go back further but I can only get to Sept 08. Any way without further adieu a recap of our conservative friends "hating Bush".

Things that out Conservative Friends Have Said.....

LIsaed - 1/20/2009 -I credit President Bush with putting the programs in place that have made our homeland safer than it was on 9-11. If Barack Obama rolls back a single one of those programs and we get hit on his watch it will be all over for President Obama.

and this one kind of highlights the irony of this topic remember this is 1/2009 he was just inaugurated.

Lisaed - 1/20/2009 - Do you really think that discussions of an Obama administration going forward are going to disallow discussions of the Bush Aministration?

and remember what I said about taking responsibility....

RushRules - 1/20/2009 - You blame everything on Bush, most he had nothing to do with, and totally ignore your own party stab you in the back.

Pat N - 12/2008 - Bush was a far better president than the far left will give him credit for.

and for those conservatives that don't like bringing up the past.... from like decades ago....

DEVIL1 - 12/23/2008 - Until Jimmy Carter is erased from the history books GW is a distant 2nd.

AND THIS ONE... OMG THIS ONE IS PERFECT FOR NOW!!!!!!! (I have to make sure it's clearly read)

Young Hot and Smart - 12/30/ 2008 - I also fail to see how Bush is responsible for local officials lack of response. You have yet to demonstrate the appropriate course of action. Local officials screwed up, not GWB.

..............................

So you see Lisa wishes that we not talk about the past fall a little bit deaf on me. This is nothing against you. Just my personal experience.

You're going to have to give me a little more than that Lisa. I've provided more than a little evidence of the hypocrisy and the myths that conservatives give for their viewpoints. Essentially you're saying do as I say but not as I do.

especially if you think the worst of someone before giving them an opportunity:

Sorry about that was trying to figure out who you were responding to. It's late for you and me. We'll pick this up later.

Lisa !!!! Adam and Eve ! Not Adams ! lol

BP may have said they would take care of the claims but Obama and the Democrats are the ones insisted on an escrow account. This prevents BP from claiming bankrupcy or a buyout from another company and avoiding the financial responsibility.

In an effort to seize greater control of the gulf oil catastrophe, President Obama is prepared to compel BP executives to set up a multibillion-dollar escrow account to pay damage claims in the region, a senior White House official said Sunday.
The Obama administration could use its legal authority under the federal oil pollution act — the landmark legislation passed a year after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill —- to force BP to set up such a fund to cover damages that are likely to be astronomical and could prove to be a burden even for BP, which posted a $6.1-billion profit last quarter. http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/14/nation/la-na-oil-spill-20100614

Bush was just a puppet for the too big to fails just like Obama is. I think all of the "too big to fails" and lobbyist pay off legislators (congressmen and senators) to create laws that favor them. When will this back scratching session end? Yea we are definaly teaching the government that we do not care how much they rob us.

The free market is not free because the individual cannot afford to be in the free market especially now with the dollar crashing like it is. When the individual cannot afford to particapate in the market place because of laws that create licenseure and fees aimed at controling the individual's ability to stay in the market the market has no competition and so it is not free. This regulation is particularly hard on the poor because they cannot afford to start a business. This regulation is aimed at the poor. It keeps them forced into public assistance programs. It hurts the value of the dollar. This is one of the big secrets of the "too big to fails". We are brainwashed into believing that we need regulation by the government in the free market. Ya'll have no idea how much regulation has hurt the individual. Minimum wage keeps the indivdual pushed down and the value of the dollar low. Forcing businesses to pay minimum wage keeps them from hiring unemployed and inexperieced workers. I personally would work for less than mw in a industry that I have experience in. There are several industries that I would like to take an apprintaceship position and work for less than mw to gain the experience.

People are brainwashed into mistakenly thinking regulation keeps the too big to fails in line this is obviously one of the biggest lies ever perpetrated upon the American people. Regulation keeps the indivdual from entering in the market and competing with the "too big to fails". Doctors used to train eachother back before regulation became the name of the game medical schools used to allow students to go to school part time and work with individual doctors to lean how to practice. Regulation tried to take out the alternative medicine industry but the people demanded it and that is the only reason you can still go to a chiropractor or a herbalist today but this industry has become very highly regulated. Look at the cell phone industry and how it has flooded the market. Regulation is some what loose and because of that you can go buy a $20 cell phone at the local mom and pop discount grocery store. The government is trying to pass legislation to take out the $20 cell phone industry and is selling in a package wraped in fear ie:it is a matter of national security.

If regualtion potected the individual banks would not be able to charge people on a fixed income $30 when they make a $5 purchase that is one penny over their balance the day before their check gets direct deposited into their account. I cannot tell you how many times thi has happened to people I know on fixed incomes. BoA has made billions of dollars doing this to their customers. If that is not enough the very people who are being robbed by the too big to fails got a bailout funded by the people they ripped off. CEOs got mutil million dollar bonuses paid by us. I could go on and on. Do the people run the government or do the too big to fails? Our vote does not count if we do not hold these toooo big to fails accountable for what they have done to the real free market.

lisa .. regulation works. when it's utilized .

your 'alternative ' medicine ? here in Detroit a few years ago one of the affiliates ( abc , cbs .. can't remember which ) did an expose on chiropractors. a healthy man was sent to 10 different chiropractors. 7 of 10 ? gave him different diagnosis' and ask that he return. 3 stated nothing was wrong with him.

Lisa, the escrow account has to be held by an impartial 3rd party so there can be no access or control by either party. When you have a mortgage on your home you often pay your insurance and taxes through an escrow account. The mortgage company collects an estimated 1/12th of the projected tax and insurance for the year and put it in an escrow account. Your insurance co. and tax collector bill you through your escrow account. You don not have access, nor does the mortgage company. I'm sure you know this but some who have never owned a home would not.

under the federal oil pollution act — the landmark legislation passed a year after the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill

Remember that BP has said they would do what it takes but Obama is getting a monetary account (promise)from which the claims can be paid. There was something about additional funds.

Lisa, I appoligize but I am not thinking well today. This is a great article and I appreciate the twist you put on the approach. It will help me and I know many many others.

BP already said they would take care of this

BP did not say they were going to create an escrow account with 20 billion dollars in it. They said they would "honor all legal claims" which is no where near as transparent as an escrow account held by a third party . It's not even in the same league.

No...he is the same as Bush...he just wants you to think he is different.

You're running on pure emotion here. Personally I think Obama should do more. However, what he has done is certifiable. Like the following:

* Gay Couples Gain Under Violence Against Women Act

* Benefits Extended to Same-Sex Partners

I'm sorry but the evidence is there. Bush never did anything like that at all.

Lisa companies care about one thing and one thing only and that's profit. 90 million is absolutely nothing to a company that has a profit of 16 billion and a net worth double or triple that amount easily.

All we have to do is look to Exxon to see that the likely hood of them paying out 20 billion on their own is so unlikely it's not even funny. Most likely you are right they will cap the damages at 20 billion. I'm sure the deal was no further litigation for exchange of the 20 billion. While it's hard to swallow its way more than the people of Louisiana would have gotten on their own.

OK, my brain has started firing again but not up to full function. I hate when this happens.

BP is now obligated to build the escrow account to $20B over a 3-1/2 year period. The $20B is not a cap. The following is from the BP website of all places:

The fund will be available to satisfy legitimate claims including natural resource damages and state and local response costs. Fines and penalties will be excluded from the fund and paid separately. Payments from the fund will be made as they are adjudicated, whether by the Independent Claims Facility (ICF) referred to below, or by a court, or as agreed by BP.

The ICF will be administered by Ken Feinberg. The ICF will adjudicate on all Oil Pollution Act and tort claims excluding all federal and state claims.

http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=2012968&contentId=7062966

Why am I thinking that the losers won't see any of this money?

Um...Kc...where did I say that they were only prepared to give $90 mill total? And I just don't see anything to support that $20 bill is the most we could've gotten

and that's the point. What event in history supports your claim that litigation was successful between common citizens and a company with enough lawyers on hand to create their own city? You really need to take a look at Exxon Valdez. The litigation is still going on. It's been 20 years Lisa. Those people haven't really gotten anything for the damage that was created there.

$20 billion...would you agree that if the Government really wants BP to pay for all of it, they should of shot for a significantly higher number?

Yup the problem is would they have gotten it? The question is rhetorical but completely misses the reality of the situation. You know the answer to that.You're acting like people would have taken BP to court in one day and left with millions of dollars in their pocket the next. You're talking about a foreign company for one and an incident that would bankrupt the company without a doubt. Do you really think that the powers that be (much less the lawyers) would have let that happen? Remember conservatives were calling 20 billion a "shakedown" . What do you think a move would be called that essentially shutdown the company for good? If they thought he was a Nazi dictator before, man they would have a field day with that one.

I don't mean to be pompous but the problem is that you're not looking at the reality of the situation. Today a judge basically told Obama that the moratorium on oil drilling was not legal. Why? Because the judge has stock in oil futures. That was the President of the United States. You really think that a regular joe would would take BP to court and left with anything? Our country is controlled by corporations and that has seeped into all levels of our government from top to bottom and that is the reality that I'm basing my viewpoint on.

Is BP responsible for more than 20 billion? Yep. Would they have gotten more on their own? Hell no. Not on this Earth.

So...what you're saying is the Judge ruled in a way that would negatively affect his stock positions? Sound like a standup guy to me...but I digress...

If you think that not recusing yourself when you own stock in the very company that will be affected by your ruling is something that makes him a "stand up guy" then you and I have totally different definitions of the term.

A judge who rules from the bench is obligated to substantiate his position by citing case law.

Pfft. If you believe that then I have a bridge to sell you. If that were the case then we wouldn't need an appeals process now would we? Judges are human and as such are just as fallible.

This Judge found the case for moratorium to be "generic and punitive"...I wish he would've used the correct term and callled it what it is...illegal!

So you're saying that companies have more rights than actual people? You forget they are working on land that's under a lease. They don't own it. We do.

You cannot go back retroactively to say a company you said was fine, is not now because ANOTHER company is not!!

If you can prove negligence you most certainly can. I would say millions of gallons of oil washing up on shore would stand a good chance of that.

The escrow account they forced is so illegal too...why BP agreed to it is beyond me...

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. Either they were forced, or they were not.

other than the threat of govt just bankrupting them and taking over...cannot think of one reason BP said yes to that.

You've already answered this question... you said "And I just don't see anything to support that $20 bill is the most we could've gotten." Considering my example of Exxon Valdez we already know the likely hood of BP freely giving away money in excess of 20 bill is VERY unlikely. This was a deal that was struck to get the most possible in the smallest amount of time. If each case went to litigation which definitely would have happened after a point, the likely hood of anyone getting anything past a certain point is unlikely.

..other than PR, and they were already doing it....it is illegal to force them to!!!

Sounds like you care more about companies making money than actual people here. They weren't forced they agreed to it. A person can't setup an escrow with your money without you consenting to it.

Lisa, my response to #2-28

but given that this really isn't legal to do to them, and they are just trying to give Obama some "sugar"...do you really think they will want to give more if he and his admin keeps bashing them? Ken Feinberg came out applauding the infrastructure they already had set up...do you think the govt handling claims will be better than a company who did it not only so quickly, but efficiently as well?

I don't understand how the escrow account is illegal. The US does not control it. BP does not control it. It is by mutual agreement that an amount of money($20B) will be depossited over an amount of time(3-1/2 years) to handle the cleanup and individual claims. The methods BP is using, Independent Claims Facility (ICF)will continue to be used with the difference of where the money is drawn. This is actually a benefit to BP as it seperates the handling of monies from the corporation from small bits and pieces to the large deposits on the scheduled plan. It also gives a little PR for BP in that they are committed to paying the claims and have reserved an account strictly for that purpose.

Just to recap, the escrow account is not illegal. BP has committed to the $20B for the account and that is not a cap amount for their financial responsibility. Obama is not "bashing" BP but is not going to be sweet to them either. They cut corners, they made the mess. Ken Feinberg will be handling the escrow account. ICF will continue to process claims but will send them to the account for payment. This should speed the payments.

No cap before, but our govt may have just done that with their actions...put yourself in BP's shoes...they implemented what an awesome system to handle claims without being asked...the admin took over ocntrol of that positing it was all their idea....White House trashes BP's CEo for going to a yachting event with his son while Obama is rounding number nine on his umpteeth time golfing since spill...go look at his social calendar...and please don't come back with Bushs' vacation schedule...I'll agree he was AWOL in advance! My point here is...if Obama is going ot call out BP exec for what he is doing himself...if I were BP...I'd be infuriated, and loathe to give one dime more to fund!

There was a cap of $75 Million from a previous bill. (no finger pointing) Last I heard, BP had already spent over $100M and that was a few days ago. The agreement is that there is no cap. If I was in BP's shoes and I messed up the Gulf of Mexico, the whole ecological system of wild life in water, land and migratory, all plant life, the livelyhood of hundreds of thousands if not more than a million people, I would first drop to my knees and beg the WORLD for forgiveness, then promise that I would do everything possible to repair what could be and make restitution to all those whose lives I have harmed. Then I would put my money where my mouth is and make it available to legitimate claims. But I am not one to put money over people and safety. That's why I'll never be rich. (thank goodness I'm beautiful)

I haven't heard anything about the gov. taking the ICF as their own. The media was trashing the BP CEO for yachting. Gibbs only said something about the PR factor. It was nothing about the man taking a day off. The whole idea that the man was using clean water for recreation while the people on the Gulf Shore could not earn their living because of his company. In reality, the man with spending Father's Day with his son just as Obama was spending time with his daughters. People need time off. Other people, like the media, need to get a life or STFU. Please don't think I'm telling you that, Lisa. It's the constant analyising of every blink and fart, trying to make something bad of it. Obama said nothing about the CEO's day nor would he have. It was a Sunday.

This may post twice, bubblegum,.

No...I care about the law.

You do realize that people who own land along the coast are covered by the law just like big companies. Right? So if oil lands in your backyard you too have the right to make BP pay up. However, the likely hood of anyone having enough money to take BP to court and win is pretty low. Hence why the government stepped in. Hmm imagine that.

Oil stock prices dropped right after ruling...so you're saying Judge made a self-serving decision that adversely affected his stock?

Lisa it's called long term outlook. As in it rebounded today. Here. Hmm funny that. It could always change for the worse. However, if the judges ruling stands you can bet it will go higher. I was going to say that last night but wanted to wait until today to see what the stock would do.

Exactly Kc...which is why I am saying Obama should not be taking credit for the escrow fund happening!! All he did was ask...big deal.

LOL Yeah like Obama approached them like Oliver Twist saying "please sir may I have some more". Your naiveté that BP would just have paid out of the kindness of their hearts is pretty amazing since there's really little to no evidence supporting your claim that BP would have forked over 20 billion willingly. Of course your retort completely wipes out your earlier claim that they were going to pay more. Basically you're saying that BP would have paid out money until everything they had was gone but because Obama asked for 20 billion they were like "OK we were going to give you more anyway". Really? Do you honestly believe that? I really don't think you do.

Just in case you decide to punt one down the middle. There is also a difference between a negotiation and holding someone at gun point. It's like playing poker. If you have a crappy (oily) hand and the dealer (in this case the US government) has a better hand than you do. It's best to just go with the flow and lose a round versus being banned from the house entirely.

And I saw his holdings are only a whopping $15,000...no BP, No Transocean, no Exxon.

Ok now you're just making stuff up.

Federal judge who quashed drilling moratorium owned shares in Transocean and Halliburton

WOW look at that took me all of 5 secs on Google. What were you using to find the article a compass and pencil?

That is a perfect description of what he did with Bank CEO's!! Mind if I boorow it?

Well you seem to be borrowing the conservative talking points pretty thoroughly so if you need to borrow another I don't see why you couldn't have it.

No it doesn't...now that they have allowed Obama to look like a tough guy, if he keeps puffing his chest, that could piss them off dontcha' think?

So you think they gave Obama 20 bill so he could "look like a tough guy"?!

You know, while you're rounding ninth hole, you call up your boys, and say.."hey...heard Tony's at a yacht race...get on it!"...well, enough of that trashing, and THAT'S when no more money is the likely outcome.

You know Reynold's Wrap is for cooking don't you?

Banned from what house...did you meant by the house, or are you susggesting they went with flow because they want another invite to White House? LOL :)

Kind of referring to the Gulf Coast off our borders that we lease out. But you look like you're on a roll. So just go with it.

Lisa, did you read my comment @ 2-35? It would answer some of what you and kc77 were discussing about Obama and the chest puffing, taking credit for the escrow. It also explains how and by whom the funds are handled and the yachting/golfing weekend. Hope it helps you two.

Prove this is wrong unequivocally or it is nothing more than a smear campaign by the Obama Admin..

Prove what wrong? Reports say he's still has stock. It's from 2008 so there's a chance he might not. Really the only thing the article does is cast doubt, but it definitely doesn't say he doesn't have it like you were claiming. Really I think it's BS because it's saying he doesn't have a stake in the case because it's not BP. Transocean and Halliburton are both involved in the Deep Horizon incident, or did you not know that? Sorry that's too close for comfort. In terms of "smear campaigns" your "disgruntled voter" schtick is really nothing more than conservative propaganda.

think about it...if this Judge had any conflicts, fed lawyer would have sought to have him recused at the onset...not after they did not get the out come they wanted...

I think you need to think about it. You know sometimes rulings do get thrown out because of situations such as these.Or are you saying that things happen in the same way every time according to your mind's eye? Sorry you're not that powerful.

Now back to the law...

It's funny conservatives never seem to remember the law when it comes to using private companies to spy on it's citizens are start illegal wars and what law was broken here anyway? You're still talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Lisa, did you read my comment @ 2-35? It would answer some of what you and kc77 were discussing about Obama and the chest puffing, taking credit for the escrow. It also explains how and by whom the funds are handled and the yachting/golfing weekend. Hope it helps you two.

Thanks for the post.

Prove this is wrong unequivocally or it is nothing more than a smear campaign by the Obama Admin...think about it..

Thank you Rachel Maddow. Here you go.

Here are a few links, Kc77:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37937049/

http://www.examiner.com/x-15870-Populist-Examiner~y2010m6d22-Credibility-of-judge-who-overturned-Obamas-drilling-moratorium-called-into-question
So what of the judge's financial ties to the oil and energy industry? According to his 2008 financial disclosure form, Judge Feldman owned up to $15,000 worth of stock in Transocean, as well as similar amounts in five other companies that are either directly or indirectly involved in the offshore drilling business: Hercules Offshore, ATP Oil and Gas, and Parker Drilling.
Each of these companies offer contract offshore drilling services and operate offshore rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Judge Feldman also owned between $15,000 and $50,000 (federal rules only require that judges report a range of values) in notes offered by Ocean Energy, Inc., a company that offers "concept design and manufacturing design of submersible drilling rigs," according to its web site

A list of Feldman's income in 2008 (amounts listed unless under $1,000):
JP Morgan Chase, BlackRock ($12000- $36000)
Ocean Energy ($1000 – $2500)
NGP Capital Resources ($1000 – $2500)
Quicksilver Resources ($5000 – $15000)
Hercules Offshore ($6000 – $17500)
Provident Energy
Peabody Energy
PenGrowth Energy
RPC Inc
Atlas Energy Resources
Parker Drilling
TXCO Resources
EV Energy Partners
Rowan Companies
BPZ Resources
El Paso Corp
KBR Inc
Chesapeake Energy
ATP Oil & Gas

Judge Feldman isn't the only justice with such financial holdings. According to the Associated Press, 37 of the 64 federal trial judges in states affected by the BP oil disaster have financial ties to oil, gas and related energy industries, including some who own stocks or bonds in BP PLC, Halliburton or Transocean. These judges regularly list receiving royalties from oil and gas production wells, according to the reports judges must file each year.

Morning Lisa.

I think Bush did a lot of thing wrong and so has Obama, finding fault with Bush now is a worthless waste of energy as he is no longer in office.

Finger pointing at Obama is also a waste because that will change nothing, I believe that Obama was elected because the people were so feed up with the government, and his ability to smooth talk and sound great was just what they wanted.

There is an old saying I love, “Time is money, money talks, and talk is cheap” Obama is a very slick talker and he seems to know just what the people want to hear which is what he says.

Democrats, republicans and independents alike need to do the same thing we were taught when I was learning to drive about RR crossings (that was a couple days ago), “Stop, Look and Listen” before we vote for anyone.

Obama’s record in congress was not worth a hoot, but he promised the country things they wanted, now he has found out that delivering on those promises is not as easy as making them.

Just once I would like to hear a politician say, “I will try and get…” or “I will do my best to change….” Rather than “I will do this”, the fact is they cannot do anything but try and most of them don’t even do that.

I voted for Bush, am I sorry I did, no, I am sorry he turned out like 95% of the politicians in Washington, not worth the power it would take to blow then off their chair.

Most of what we, the people, complain about is our own fault, we believe the lies and tall tales the politicians bend out ears with rather than looking at the reality in what they say, it’s a “Gee, I like what he/he says” well, “talk is cheap”.

He they promise they will “Put a chicken in every pot” you better stop and look at the reality of that statement, we need to stop voting “Party Lines” and start voting for the person who has the real possibility of keeping their promises, and makes promises that are realistic, (and that goes for me too).

Obama is no great shakes when it comes to a leader, but truth be known, none of the parties at this time have anyone who is.

We seem to place out hopes on “pipe dreams” and the old “Dems/Repubs” can do it better when the fact is it’s a good paying, money getting, cushy job and they will say whatever it takes to get it.

((This post is the opinion of the writer and not necessarily that of the reader or the Vine, and should be taken with a grain of salt with sugar on the side as it is only my Opinion))

Stu, what you've got to remember is that the People aren't too bright.

No they are not merely complaining, they lost and therefore they refuse to participate in democracy. It goes much farther than simply annoying, it is downright foolhardy to filibuster every single bill that gets presented just because they feel a need for revenge and partisan point garnering. This is the 21st century, why is our government stuck trying to run things the same way as the dark ages?

do you really think they liked Bush any better?

Hard to say, most I see change the subject pretty fast, the few who don't either were blind to much of what he did (or more accurately failed to do) during his presidency, or say they don't like him but then champion many of the exact same sort of politicians like Mccain or Romney.

No isn't a solution, it is a halt of movement.

He can't get anything done because of lobbyists, lies, and obstructionism. People were throwing absolute hysterics over the health care bill, when there wasn't even a health care bill yet. When it was merely being proposed all the nonsense about death panels, taking away medicare and social security, etc.

We already have death panels, they work at the insurance companies and kill a lot more people than they should, people who paid them a lot of good income for when they might need help in the future. Social security was already attempted to be done away with by Bush.

I think the vast majority of the country just wants to see some personal improvement in their lives, which is what Obama is trying to give them, however nobody can budge for fear of upsetting their corporate lobbyists, contributors, or local constituents and as a result progress is at a complete standstill.

Would you consider the difference in corporate or industry lobbists and non-profit cause lobbists? I saw a lists of the former lobbists for his cabinet and remember sometning about hunger, green energy... Wish I knew where I saw the list. They were not from big oil or banking.

Thanks, Lisa,

Looks like a mix of good and bad. National Education Association, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, ACLU + American Constitution Society + Center for Reproductive Rights, National Council of La Raza, SEIU (maybe), and American Assn of Justice. That's 6 possible no conflict members. I'm not crazy about Raytheon. Or the bankers. I also don't quite know how to feel on the lobbyist part. It wasn't right to go against his word. Then again, i don't know what all he had in mind.

He has a diverse group with knowledge and experience. A smart person doesn't have all the answers but he knows where to find them.

This does lend to what I posted farther down. Obama was blamed, in this case criticized, from before he took office. Two weeks in and they don't like his cabinet.

Stu-4803409

do you really think they liked Bush any better?

Hard to say, most I see change the subject pretty fast, the few who don't either were blind to much of what he did (or more accurately failed to do) during his presidency, or say they don't like him but then champion many of the exact same sort of politicians like Mccain or Romney.

I think you will find these people, (both sides) to be “staunch party followers” no matter what rather than concerned American’s, some people don’t believe a dem/repub can open their eyes right.

With all the change that has taken place in the attitudes of the people of this country, that is one that has not changed, according to the “standard” I am not sure what I am because I vote either one, depending on who is the best for the job.

or we could all just party ! and to hell with politicians !

I saw a great sign the other day that read ....

Politicians should serve 2 terms ! One in office the other in prison!

and yet .... sometimes it's one finger pointing at you and none pointing back.

The problem is "Missing Jobs," not "Lost Jobs."

Since January 2001, the economy should have added 7.9 million jobs according to the President's Council of Economic advisors. The prediction line shows what they believed in November 2001, when they thought Bush's tax cut policies would create enough jobs to put the job market back on track before the 2004 election.

The graph below, puts the top graph in more historical context to show that the economy adds jobs rapidly in normal times. As of April 2005 only 0.8 million had been added in 4.25 years (since Bush took office), while in the previous 20 years, which included the Reagan and Bush I recessions, and average of 2.1 million were added per year.

with graphs .. source ..BLS data and spreadsheet.

http://zfacts.com/p/531.html">

Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers

there was ZERO net job creation under Bush . Do the math !!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/01/AR2010010101196.html">

Job growth under Bush was worst since WWII

Annual employment-growth rates for all 11 postwar presidents are listed below:
Total employment
1. Lyndon Johnson (1963-69), 3.74%
2. Jimmy Carter (1977-81), 3.11%
3. Bill Clinton (1993-2001), 2.42%
4. Harry Truman (1945-53), 2.38%
5. Richard Nixon (1969-74), 2.30%
6. John Kennedy (1961-63), 2.28%
7. Ronald Reagan (1981-89), 2.04%
8. Gerald Ford (1974-77), 0.95%
9. Dwight Eisenhower (1953-61), 0.87%
10. George H.W. Bush (1989-93), 0.59%
11. George W. Bush (2001-09), 0.28%

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/stories/2009/01/19/daily7.html">

that means Obama inherited not only the economic crap but a sliding unemployment that Bush couldn't and didn't meet. swallow hard cons. alot of this pie is your doing.

"America has a strong economy and a surplus.... Now is the time to reform the tax code and share some of the surplus with the people who pay the bills."

--George W. Bush, nomination acceptance speech, 3 August 2000

From 1970 to 2009 there has been 2.1 trillion tax payer dollars spent on bailouts. Of this 2.1 trillion, 146.2 billion was spent under Democratic Presidents, and of this 2.1 trillion, 1,958.2 trillion (that's right, trillion) was spent under Republican Presidents. What I'm gathering from all the hooting and hollerin, Obama and Democrat bashing, is many Americans are angry because they've never seen this type of spending before in their lifetime, but I think most of them have.

$146,200,000,000.00 Billion spent in bailouts under Democratic Presidents.

$1,958,200,000,000.00 Trillion spent in bailouts under Republican Presidents.

$2,104,400,000,000.00 Trillion in Total bailouts from 1970 to 2009.

So I have to ask, those of you who consider yourself a Tea Party Advocate, no matter what political party you associate with, if any at all, and support and/or attend Tea Partys, what are you REALLY angry about?

http://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts

Surprise: Dems are better for rallies
http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/

Who's the Better Manager of the Economy, Republicans or Democrats?
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2004/manage_economy.html

Why the economy fares much better under Democrats
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2008/1021/p09s01-coop.html

Bush Latest GOPer to Show Democrats Better for the Economy
By Jon Perr Sunday Jan 25, 2009

http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/bush-latest-goper-show-democrats-better-e

Politicians Lie, Numbers Don't And the numbers show that Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans.
http://www.slate.com/id/2199810

So how much is spent on the wars and include the war on drugs .

I still support the war on Iraq. Saddam had to go and the longer we waited the harder it would become to remove him from power.

After 9-11 we needed a leader, President Bush stood up and was one. For that I will always be grateful.

I agree with you there, Jason.

I didn't agree with everything Bush did, but after 9/11 he showed true leadership, at a time when we really, really needed it.

Although I pretty much despise all politicians in general, I was proud of Bush then, and glad he was our President. I'll look for the Woodward books, thanks for the recommendation.

I can explain some of it and why we couldn't go into war right then.

Some of it is because of the draw down that happened between 1993-1996. We closed quite a few bases overseas and we had a lot fewer troops than we do now by the time 2001 rolled around. Another problem was that we had quite a few assets patrolling the No Fly Zone in Iraq at that time to keep Saddam from committing total Genocide on the @!$%#es and Kurdish civilians. Most people didn't even have a clue on how big a problem Saddam was but he was a huge problem. It's estimated that Saddam had killed over 2 million people in a three month period of time after the Gulf War. Then we also had Kosovo and Haiti between 1995-1998. Then we had the Clinton Defense Budget cuts to the mix and the U.S. Forces were in really bad shape. Before 9-11 happened most of the people saw little reason to even have an active duty Defense.

We also had a lot of Political infighting between the Active Services themselves on what our new missions would be. Many branches were having a hard time trying to justify their existence. We had Cold War Generals clashing with rising new generation officers and no Mission Statement to unite everyone. By 9-11 our overall readiness for combat was piss poor except for the equipment located in South Korea and Iraq.

Another big problem was Afghanistan itself. We had no bases in that region to launch an offensive from. If you look at Afghanistan you will notice that it doesn't even have a coast. Everything had to be flown in and with most of our Planes tied up securing the Iraq No Fly Zone even that would be a challenge. We ended up sending in nearly all the Special Combat Units we have into regions of Afghanistan that were not heavily patrolled and these troops had to build an Air Base from scratch without the Taliban noticing. Also most of our troops couldn't speak the language so many of them had to go through training for that.

What we did have was the Northern Alliance but they were just a few weeks from total defeat. The Northern Alliance main leader had been assassinated just days before 9-11 and was crumbling around the edges. They had little to no supplies, were disorganized, and overall moral was as low as you could get. It was pretty bad after 9-11.

The first thing we did was we placed some Special Forces and CIA forces with the Northern Alliance and began to supply them. We leased an Air Base from Uzbekistan and from there we were able to supply the Northern Alliance and Special Operation units. To get anything more than that would have taken at least six months to a year in preparations.

All in all I believe our total forces in Afghanistan was around 40k when the Taliban was overthrown. We had little choice but to use the Northern Alliance. Now that we have a few air bases in Afghanistan and we don't have to keep Saddam from murdering half the people in Iraq things have gotten better.

People who have never served in the millitary don't understand everything that goes into a War. The equipment, the water, the ammunition, the gas and diesel, the tents, the clothing, the food, hospital equipment, etc. and it has to be a three month supply. That's not an easy feat to accomplish even with a neighboring country as a launching point. When you don't have a neighboring country to attack from and the country is land locked it becomes impossible. Now, imagine trying to hide all of that from your enemy so they don't see you coming.

In Iraq we launched the ground assault with a 120,000 men 3 days after breaking off negotiations. Saddam figured he would have 6 extra months to get ready and we nearly killed him on the very first night of the attack. Nobody even knew we had 120k men sitting outside of Iraq. Imagine hiding a city size of people, the equipment, and the supplies right outside a countries border without anybody knowing it. Nobody in the host country knew except a few people in Saudi. We had most of the troops in Saudi Arabia three months before we were to attack. It's pretty amazing when you think about it.

I still support the war on Iraq. Saddam had to go and the longer we waited the harder it would become to remove him from power.

After 9-11 we needed a leader, President Bush stood up and was one. For that I will always be grateful.

what president wouldn't react after 911 ? funny how Bush dismantled alot of what Clinton started. I'll post that separately.

Iraq was a lie. there were bigger fish to fry than Saddam. Saddam kept Iran busy. what we have now is another Iran. not to mention Bush caused more terrorists to be made by his BS invasion.

As for Saddam murdering people ? the Kurds ? well it still isn't sure if he did it or if Iran did. I think he did ... and yet the US sold him those weapons ! we also put him in power. And why didn't we do anything when it happened ? not years later.

War Helps Recruit Terrorists, Hill Told
Intelligence Officials Talk Of Growing Insurgency
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28876-2005Feb16.html

first .. what 'helped' us in the Iraq war ? ( which has fallen apart ) that surge....

February 2006: Muqtada al-Sadr orders an end to execution-style killings by Mahdi Army death squads.

August 2006: Sadr announces a broad ceasefire, which he has maintained ever since.

September 2006: The Sunni Awakening begins. Tribal leaders, first in Anbar and later in other provinces, start fighting back against al-Qaeda insurgents.

March 2007: The surge begins

the surge never would have happened without the ceasefire and the awakening.

the Bush-Cheney anti-terrorism record before September 11, 2001:

-- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.
-- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.
-- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.
-- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense.
-- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department. -- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats. -- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.
-- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain. -- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in the US - took a four week vacation.

Contrasted with Clinton's real results:

-- Sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The Republicans because of opposition from the airlines, defeated the legislation.
-- Sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests, defeated it.
-- Sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF EXPLOSIVES USED BY TERRORISTS. The Republicans because of opposition from the NRA, defeated it.

When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, President Clinton:
-- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.
--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport. -- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.
-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.
-- Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).
-- Brought perpetrators of first World Trade Center bombing and CIA killings to justice.
-- Did not blame Bush I administration for first World Trade Center bombing even though it occurred 38 days after they had left office. Instead, worked hard, even obsessively -- and successfully -- to stop future terrorist attacks.
-- Named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.
-- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.
-- Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries -- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
-- Robert Oakley, Reagan Counterterrorism Czar says of Clinton's efforts "Overall, I give them very high marks" and "The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama"
-- Paul Bremer, Bush's Administrator of Iraq disagrees slightly with Robert Oakley saying he believed the Clinton Administration had "correctly focused on bin Laden. "
-- Barton Gellman of the Washington Post put it best, "By any measure available, Clinton left office having given greater priority to terrorism than any president before him" and was the "first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terrorist effort."

Clinton maintained submarines armed with cruise missiles in striking distance of his camps. They could launch in, I believe, an hour of receiving intelligence of bin Laden's whereabouts. Three times, the White House received intelligence of bin Laden's presence, and that he was likely to remain at the location for at least an hour. Clinton wanted to order strikes each time, but each time, George Tenet strongly advised against them on security grounds. They didn't happen.

One of Bush's first orders on taking office in January 2001 was to remove the submarines.

"Clinton's advisors met nearly weekly on how to stop bin Laden...I didn't detect that kind of focus from the Bush adminsitration."
- Two Star General Donald Kerrick

what Republicans said about Clinton and his use of the military

"You can support the troops but not the president" ---Rep. Tom Delay
(R-TX)

sound familiar ?

" President . . . is once again releasing American military
might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit
strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation
will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about
how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a
sound foreign policy." ---Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)

"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . . I
didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area." ---Senator
Trent Lott (R-MS)

"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is
they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years." ---Joe
Scarborough (R-FL)

"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may
come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up
their life?" ---Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99

"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it
is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just
learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with
very vague
objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these
questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of
engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition
of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is
no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-
extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital
national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war
when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan
today" ....-Rep. Tom Delay (R-TX)

"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they
have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy." ---
Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W. Bush

and from the grand hypocritical liar himself !!!!

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to
explain to us what the exit strategy is."
-Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)

His view on Clinton !

BUSH OPPOSES NATION BUILDING...

"If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road." [Gov. George W. Bush, 10/3/00]

Yet what does he do ??

...BUSH SUPPORTS NATION BUILDING

"We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people." [President Bush, 3/6/03]

JB you live in a fantasy land devoid of fact or logic. Starting at the end of you rationalization of the excesses and failures of the Bush Cheney regime you say that we had a pretty good ride. Who is the "we" are you referring to? Even in the precrash time frame you refer to Unemployment rose, real wages declined, and the smoke and mirrors of low interest inflated the housing bubble which added to the severity of the economic collapse we are recovering from today.

The B/C regime's approach to governing led to the actions of the Minerals & Minning Agency who we know now are partially responsible for the Oil Chernobyl in the Gulf. Their let the foxes write the regulations and look the other way enforcement approach was also partially responsible for the B/C regime blocking attempts to reign in mortgage fraud, securities fraud and the manipulation of the Justice department for political purposes.

Your assertion regarding the troop levels in Afghanistan are laughable at best. Do a little reading on Tora Bora and tell me that Bush was serious about his Ossama "dead or alive" comment. The truth is that the number of fighting troops never exceed 10,000 in Afghanistan prior to the start of the Iraq invasion and even that pitiful number was not sustained for more than a few months as the decision to invade Iraq redirected combat troops and the support sturcture and resources. This lack of support prevented the in theater combat forces from having more than a token presence in Afghanistan.

JB do you remeber that the O man's first act as Commander and Chief was to give McCrystal the 40,000 more troops he had been asking for for the previous 18 months. These troops were BEFORE the Obama surge. A surge that has little chance of succeeding without a combination of loyal and capable Afghan troops AND the trust of the tribal leaders.

Reviewing the poliices of the B/C regime I challenge you to name an initiative that would be measured as a success by any objective measure. Just one!

The only one I can think of is the largest transfer of wealth in the history of the nation, unfortunately it was from the poor and middle class to the hyper rich.

Heckeva Job Dub-ya

Of course I noticed! I appreciate the shout out. Just didn't mention it because I didn't want to sound self serving.LOL! Anyway, seriously your writing is definitely a cut above the rest. Some of the major newspapers going under might be saved if they had you writing for them.

Lisa, I suck at doing these links and things. That is why I would like for you to go to my most recent article and link your article. I want everyone on my friends list to read this insightful article.

Crap he was getting on NV before taking office. http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/12/21/2235714-obamas-rent-beach-home-in-low-key-hawaii-town?commentId=4516562#c4516562

I thought he was "one of us"? I'm not renting extravagant houses in Hawii for my vacation. Good for him but when there is work to do, you won't catch me vacationing. #12 - Sun Dec 21, 2008 1:46 PM CST Chris-771451

Yes and I'm sure Michelle Obama is wearing her $30 Gap turtleneck while there. Oh yeah, and her $30,000 ring. They're such hypocrites.
#10 - Sun Dec 21, 2008 1:21 PM CST Marie-311311

I thought he was "one of us"? I'm not renting extravagant houses in Hawii for my vacation. Good for him but when there is work to do, you won't catch me vacationing.
#12 - Sun Dec 21, 2008 1:46 PM CST Chris-771451

I just think it's great to see an average citizen who lives such a humble life as president for a change. He could have vacationed in a much more expensive house, but he choose to stay humble and just rent an ordinary house instead of flaunting his wealth. He understands that America is hurting and chose to vacation in moderation. Finally somebody that understands us average Americans and lives the same way we do.
#15 - Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:15 PM CST Common Sense Mike

I realize it must be those evil Republicans that have forced him to take two vacations in Hawaii since Nov 4th....it's not something he can control. I thought I was giving him credit for keeping it moderate. Wonder what it cost the taxpayers to fly all the Secret Service and their SUV's over to Hawaii so far? Probably alot more than this cheap house they are staying in.
#15.4 - Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:27 PM CST Common Sense Mike

Pamela, what you fail to recognize is that the President, all of them in both parties, no matter where they are, they are still President and still constantly bombarded with the decisions of running the country.
I wasn't counting the trip he made to visit his grandmother, that was before Nov 4th. Seriously, he can govern from Hawaii for all I care. I just judge a politician by their actions, not their words. They all say what they think we want to hear to get elected, and do whatever they want once in office. Obama, so far, hasn't proven to be the exception to that. He talks about the common man but his stimulus package he is talking about doesn't help me. Building roads and bridges doesn't help me buy groceries. I'd much more prefer that $1200 rebate check again personally.
#15.7 - Tue Dec 23, 2008 8:18 AM CST Common Sense Mike

One article, kind of gives you the attitude of a few here in Dec '08.

I'll check out your articles tomorrow. I was on one with Edison Ellis and he was rude to say the least. Ccmmon Sense Mike was being sarcastic about Obama being just like us then renting this huge mansion in Hawaii for vacation. This was Dec. 23, a month before Obama was sworn in. It was Obama's money, but the trashing was going full blast. This was just one article. Not heavy there but I stayed away from the realy nasty ones.

LOL I don't favor TheObserver. I like a good debate not berate. He has his good moments but I rarely see them. Like I said last night, Edison Ellis was rude on our last encounter. He is a sniper. The ones we remember the most are the most abrasive and obnoxious. Please try not to engage with them. They do not represent the Left and certainly don't speak for Obama..

As to who attacks whom, both sides have their asses. They attack everything but the policies. They are the uninformed. It's much easier to latch onto the big ears or the ugly wife or the expensive dinner. When they try to talk politics it is all the crap someone else has already exaggerated or flat out lied. Try to find the ones who are calm and willing to talk issues. Remember, though, you have to stay open and calm, too. (that's what I keep telling myself)

If Animal Farm is to be invoked then my favorite is "All are equal, some are just more equal than others".

in hate for the government that has built up.

Not to finger point but that really shows how little of history people remember. You remember what happened lately. The hate for Govt pales in comparison to the days of Viet Nam which pales in comparison to the Civil War. Congress was raucous then. They had a bar on premises and fist fights on the Senate floor. Senators got hospitalized from them and permanently injured. And you could go way back to Revolutionary War and the acrimonious debate and hate for the Govt but maybe you see my point. Hate for the Govt is nothing new-Bush happens to have our focus now. We really need to get past all that and move forward. Live in the past but as the author points out-it happened. The trouble is what are we doing NOW that is so different- and i find little different at all.

BTW- I voted for Bush both times- the 2nd was a huge mistake but I trusted Kerry much less than Bush. I voted for hope and change because i remember the view of the US when JFK was President. He did not do all that many great things, but he inspired people and brought unity to the nation. I thought Obama would do that which is why I voted for him. So far, it was a error but time will tell.

I don't believe the article is about what Obama has done now. It's about stopping the Bush finger pointing, isn't that correct?

I gave you the reasons why the finger points at Bush and will for a long time.

you see EE while you might be correct at finger pointing to Bush or even further back in time it helps nothing, To me it is like the spill thing everyone wanting to find out "why" or "who" did/caused it, Heck FIX it !

While YES Bush was a disaster our current POTUS is continuing so many of his disasters and well that is NOT helping any of us or this Nation !

Mr. E. Ellis- you are obviously intelligent. However, even those with a genius IQ sometimes lack common sense. Perhaps you truly are unaware that you are attempting to direct us toward your own selective truths. Because you seem to miss the whole point of this article while at the same time proving Lisa's point with your posts.

Please open your eyes sir! Certainly you do not wish to be the poster child for the article itself?

The point I can agree with is that the O man is deserving of criticism. However her 2nd point is that blaming Bush has become a sheild for meaningful discussion of his short comings is confusing the issues.

Would we be criticizing the O man for Iraq or GITMO if W would have stayed focused on Afghanistan and stayed out of Iraq?

Would we be criticizing the O man for TARP if W would have had a different approach to financial regulation?

Would we be criticizing the O man for deficit spending if we had not had TWO rounds of tax cuts transferring nearly a Trillion dollars to the wealthiest 1% of Americans?

The list goes on and on and the answer is ALWAYS no!

The question I would ask Lisa is: Due to the level of energy required to clean up the fine mess W left behind how much do you expect the O man to accomplish on what would be considered a liberal agenda? Additionally, given the unprecedented level of obstructionism of the GOP what to you realistically expect?

You are very smart Lisa.

Lisa, you do realize we could have 0 republicans in any office and it would still be their fault!

Those dirty repubs with their little minority ruining everything!

Lisa I'm not getting into another slap fight with you.

Well Edison...it's too bad that finger pointing back to Bush will be all you have to support Obama with. I guess that says a lot in and of itself.

You can't even keep on the topic of your own article. You want nothing more than to try and put down anyone who disagrees with your assertions.

You really don't have a point here other than to espouse your rightist views of the President.

So now we're going to debate "ifs and buts?!"

Finger pointing...care to try again?

Finger pointing too

I didn't click on any of your links Edison...I think majority agree Bush did the set-up. Where are we now that Obama has the ball, what is he doing to advance it down the field?

.I am to blame for my part in that. What I'm hearing on this thread is maybe they don't understand that Obama is just as indefensible as Bush to the majority of those they debate

..I won't debate the labels.

All examples of your hypocrisy.

I feel sorry for you Lisa. Your ego can't really keep up with your comments and just shows you don't want true discourse.

I think the opposite EdisonEllis and it appears that you are the one who can't support your arguments, so you resort to the pity party guilt trip "I feel sorry for you" and name calling....of course...."hypocracy". That doesn't seem to work on Lisa. And at least she is open and honest and it is clear you don't want to see her point. You like bashing and being disagreeable and that in itself proves her point over and over again throughout these comments.

Well, I tried. I crown you Mr. Ellis THE poster child of Bush finger pointing! Just remember as you cruise the Country bashing Bush the current President may sneak up and take a big chunk outta your ass. So be careful friend!

This particular thread was sarcastic and in no way helpful. EdisonEllis was asking for the accountability of the Republicans and rather then acknowledge, consider and debate, you all go sharky, pointing the finger at him.

So are the non-Democrats willing to accept that 22% aproval rating Bush had when he left? Are the Republicans going to explain their solidarity in voting against almost everything they haven't brought to the table? And vote against some of what they did bring to the table? The Democrats have members that don't vote party line. I keep hearing about the Dem. majority but it is not a super-majority. The Senate is sitting on their asses collecting pay because ONE of the parties isn't moving. Knock off the snark and try to talk to others with respect.

SW; "Knock off the snark and try to talk to others with respect." ?????

Lisa has been (IMHO) way to polite ! This thread isn't about Bush ! We all know what he has done and Edison does not seem to get that. He just keeps doing what the article is talking about and pointing the fingers at Bush and the Republican party. Lisa has repeatedly pointed out, numerous times, that the Democrats have majority ! They pushed the Healthcare bill thru but yet, somehow, It is always the minority that seems to "overturn" every so called "good" thing Obama tries to do??????? Obama has the power and the majority but can't seem to get his own party behind him ? maybe we can't say it is all his fault, but if not who is to blame? Obama=Dem , Majority= Dem and yet still it seems to be all the Republicans fault? It is more then obvious some don't get it, BOTH parties suck! Politicians SUCK, and we the PEOPLE are paying the price !

Very well stated Tired! Excellent post.

Having the majority does not mean that they will agree with every bill proposed by the party. Likewise it should be that some on the other side would like enough of the bill to vote for it. The health care bill passed with some deals made that were taken back. Members of either party should not be making deals to

Power is out. gotta go.

Lisa... dear lady. You have posted a well written and thought out article. I admire how you monitor your thread with not only patience but, intelligence. I could never do as well as you do and I so admire your strengths. God bless you. ((((Lisa))))

#15.18.. Tired.. I agree with your comments also.

Mrs D agrees with ME ! I love her !

Oh, these few days are not being kind to me. In related continuation of #15-20, a few deals Democrates made for the HCB, but may have been removed:

They did this with the “Louisiana Purchase,” a change to Medicaid relief for Lousiana, presumably to get Mary Landrieu on board. And now they are doing the same to Ben Nelson, and the proposal in the bill that would exempt his state of Nebraska from having to pay any extra costs for Medicaid expansion after 2016, unlike the rest of the nation.
Nelson responded to charges that his vote was for sale by arguing that Republican Gov. Dave Heineman actually asked for the exemption because of budget concerns in Nebraska

To be sure, there are some pay-offs to individual legislators worthy of more concern. In defending the Nelson carve-out, Franken said “you can find a parochial interest in every state in this bill, like how it treats medical devices.” It was a not-so-subtle reference to how Evan Bayh got a medical devices tax slashed in the Senate bill early on in the process, something Bayh touts on his own website

In fact, if you want to go after Ben Nelson, do it for the exemption from an excise tax on non-profit insurers designed only to benefit Mutual of Omaha, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (Carl Levin originally requested the exemption). But getting upset about Senators trying to protect their poorest citizens from the whims of state budgets seems to me to be exactly the opposite of what should anger people
http://news.firedoglake.com/2009/12/21/conservatives-highlighting-sweetheart-deals-in-health-care-bill/

I know Nelson in Nebraska was removed.

I found this, not related, but something I haven't seen discussed in the HCB.

In this final piece of health reform, Democrats added in a restructuring of the way the government handles loans affecting millions of students.

The law strips banks of their role as middlemen in federal student loans and puts the government in charge. The president said that change would save more than $60 billion over the next 10 years, which in turn would be used to boost Pell Grants for students and reinvest in community colleges.

"I didn't stand with the banks and the financial industries in this fight -- that's not why I came to Washington -- and neither did any of the members of Congress who are here today," Obama said to a supportive crowd at Northern Virginia Community College. "We stood with you. We stood with America's students."

I knew the education/student financing was there but no one has talked much about it. That was just a reminder of something good in the bill.

Nelson was catching too much hell over the first deal to think he would get the second.

Salazar said Wednesday that he plans to issue a new deepwater drilling freeze that could be refined to reflect offshore conditions and allow drilling in areas where reserves and risks are known rather than in exploratory reservoirs. http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2010/06/23/4553179-government-seeks-delay-in-moratorium-ruling

I don't see a disregard for the law from the administration. Much of what I am hearing as illegal, is perfectly legal and the law is not being checked. I do see grandstanding from some politicians who think that by yelling and throwing a fit they will make the president look stupid and weak. Obama is not stupid and he will not jump because a senator or governor or news personality thinks he should. He is the President of the United States, Commander in Chief, the highest ranking official of our country. While we disagree with his policies, personal traits and family should be left alone. Pointing fingers, it should have been that way with Bush, too. Let the comedians do their jobs. Being rude and cruel is never warranted.

Pointing fingers, it should have been that way with Bush, too

Not sure what that is but it's wrong. What I meant is that Bush should have been treated the same as I think Obama should.

He is the President of the United States, Commander in Chief, the highest ranking official of our country. While we disagree with his policies, personal traits and family should be left alone.

Bush should have been treated with more respect even though we disagreed with his policies.

I'll get back on deem and pass. Good night.

Doc E... wonderful post. :-) I totally agree with you.

Exactly, Elaine. Thanks!

Voted for Bush 2x and still think I made a good choice.

Thanks mther...I also voted for Bush both times...and that's another thing we have in common!

What. Bush sent American people to die in Iraq for revenge, oil and to steal money from America people and all base on a freaking lie. To me that says that indeed Bush "hates" America

The O man's approach to Iraq is realistic and practical. The shear magnitude of our presence means that we couldn't just pull up stakes and leave. If you remember the Iraqis gave us the time table to leave and we will for practical purposes comply. Leaving sooner risked destabilizing the level of peace that was attained. Iraq may well devolve into chaos but we will not be blamed for abandoning our responsibility to provide security for their transition to self government

As for Afghanistan I agreed with the President that we need to sterilize this petre dish for terrorism otherwise we risk allowing the extremist to grow stronger and increase their capacity to strike Western interests. I expect that US forces will remain in this country for decades and the world will be safer for our efforts!

I however do not support the use of the drones to assassinate suspected leaders and bystanders.

Obamanites bashed Bush for taking us to war over 9/11. And because we were stuck there so long we forgot why we were there. Now, we're still there and heading into another war maybe world war III. But no one hates Obama. I think Obama was pandering. He can't do any more than Bush. I think Ir's bad to bash either one of them. But we must face reality of what's going on and decide to take on some responsibility to make it different.

If Obama turned conservative and you discovered Bush was liberal who would you bash then?

I'm glad someone understands it.

The Bush bashing didn't start until about campaigning time. It was all politics. But like you said it didn't help America's image. And then Obama made it appear like he had to settle for being president to an inferior country. He went to other countries, bowling to their leaders, and apologizing for our faults. And he didn't get our faults right at that. That didn't help our image. I feel used and misused. Obama isn't experienced enough.

Bush is hated like no other at this time in America's history and history will never kind to Bush. This man is polling in the 20 % and that 20 % is family and friends.

History will prove Bush was right. I won't change your mind and you won't change my mind, so there is no point in arguing about it. But he is NOT hated by over 60 million people who voted for him twice. I am one.

and of that 20% his 11th cousin Barrack is one of them !!

http://www.jonesreport.com/image/01_09/Obama-Bushheredity.jpg

Why bash Bush? He's not running for anything. All you're doing is bashing America. Maybe Americans aren't wise enough to vote right?

I see your point Lisa, but I always point to this....Saddam did use WMD to kill hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Iranians. The question to me is, where did it go? Baccah Valley maybe? Bedouins are good at moving anything through deserts that they want moved for whatever reasons, and Saddam had time. I'm just saying I don't buy WMD's didn't exist. To me they obviously did.

Other mistakes made, yes. No plan for what to do after we took Baghdad, but even that we made right in the end as best we could for the Iraqi people. I agree with you, Afghanistan is where our fight was. But in this strange fight on terror, who can really define where they are? They are everywhere they want to be and they aren't wearing military uniforms.

The main thing for me regarding military matters, is I leave that to military people. I really have no opinions on that. I wrote an article called "Who Are You Anyway, Left? Right?" where I make that point.

We are in this mess, because of Bush and Bush only. Maybe if Bush's God told him to help and help the America and American people then he would not be hated so much. I know that you Bush fans are having a hard time dealing with it. I don't know what to say to help you on that. Don't get mad at me for most of Americans that hate Bush.

You people can say that Saddam had this but evidence says that he didn't It isn't my evidence that says that. It is the world that says that. Also all Bush did by getting rid of Saddam was make Iran go crazy. At least Saddam keep Iran at bay. Bush is the worst. Bush is in the bottom 5 and like I said history will never show Bush in a good light.

Life...I can't understand you saying Saddam did not use mass poisonings on hundreds of thousands of Kurds and Iranians....that is WMD. Don't you get that? You can't say he didn't have the stuff when he used the stuff. Know what I mean?

Like I said, at least 60 million people disagree with you about George Bush. I know you Obama fans have a hard time dealing with that.

Elaine....... WTF are you talking about. You know damn well that those "WMD"s" are not the ones that people are talking about. Why do you keep saying that. They are talking about nuclear weapons okay. Also even Bush has said that he got it wrong. Do you even believe Bush on that. Your argument makes no sense.There are more Americans who hate Bush. Do you understand that. I'm with the majority on this.

Also what 60 million are you referring to.

I believe part of Elaine's point..and mine is that Saddam killed thousands of people! We did do some good getting rid of the evil bastard. I know damn well that many in iraq are thrilled to be rid of him. So, it's not as if no good came out of it.

reless........ so if Iraq was to do the same thing to an America Pres because they didn't like him or the way he did things that would be okay. There are a lot of evil people in charge of places and yet Bush choose Iraq. Iraq is not America's problem. Do you understand that. Yes Saddam was evil, but the Iraq people should have been the one to do something un-less he was killing Americans. Also the war plan was not good enough. Also tell those innocent people who died in Iraq. Why do you did that man threw a shoe at Bush.

lifeisgood-With all due respect pal your comparison is astoundingly insane. Yes, if our President was killing thousands of Americans I would be thrilled for someone to come in and stop him. That's not quite the same as just not liking the way someone is doing things. I'm amazed that such a caring liberal could put it so lightly.

When we went in Iran their electric was severely disabled. The people, I believe, looked on us as the attacker. We were in the wrong country and confused the civilians as to why we were there. When the statue came down it was a joyous time but in the beginning it had to be very frightful. Meanwhile, the Taliban were able to work in Afghanistan, recruit and train and plan for the eventual. We come in late and they are so rooted and know the best points of attack and retreat. It was a massive mistake to go into Iran first.

Okaaaay, hold on a second? First, Yes Saddam DID use the nerve gas on the Iranians..Bush was not looking for them, he already knew about them. Mainly because WE were the ones that gave Saddam the weapons to use against the Iranians.

And I do believe, and of course I will listen to an opposing opinion, that Saddam may have been a bastard. He was "eliminated". During the sabre rattling sessions Saddam actually threatened for the U.S. to take him to the Hague, and then stated he would tell everything he knows because at the Hague he A) was allowed to under their rules and B) The U.S. could not control the World Court.

Saddam had "The goods" on George Sr. and the CIA, there was no way that was going to be allowed, so it was set up that he would be tried in Iraq First. We controlled the information coming from that and we "steered" the Iraqi courts.

Same problem applies to Manuel Noriega, he was the "broker" or middleman for Sr. Bush and the CIA during the Iran/Contra days. The CIA would deliver the weapons in Panama, and Columbia, on return trips they brought back drugs from Columbia. Noriega brokered both sides. When the crap started to unfold, Noriega was a threat and did threaten Sr. that he too would tell all. We went down and got Noriega out of Panama and until very recently he has sat in solitude in Miami. He is now facing foreign charges.

Stud,

Lets see if I got it right.

We're slaves to Drug Lords???

1. Foriegn Relations is about dealing with drugs in foreign countries?
2. We're voting for our favorit Drug Lord for president?
3. Which ever drug dealer offers us the best drug deal gets our vote?
4. So the Health Care Plan is about the best drug deals made by drug curtails?
5. So all the Senate's bills passed is about drugs and slavery?
6. All the money Congress grabs is for the bills the Senate passed and the president signs, for drugs and slaves?
7. And the people are slaving away to add more cost for drugs, to make and keep us druggies?

So who's minding the pharmacy?

Although I see your well stated points I feel I need to differ on a few,

"He wants to subsidize wind, solar, biofuel PRODUCTION. He does this in the hope that with current ineffective techniques which lose money that we can make it up in volume."

And in this I only really have experience with Wind and a bit of solar. When it comes to wind energy production we are doing well on our own and getting more farms that you probably know. The Northwest in particular gets a good chunk of electricity from wind. I became quite interested and even visited wind farms there and in Spain. Spain gets approx. 15% of it's total electricity from wind, Germany too...and they export the daylights out of their technology thereby producing many jobs. GE and Siemans are heavy hitters in the U.S. market, neither produce the turbines here or at least GE was contemplating it here. Spain...ready for this? Has turned cemetaries in to producers , I swear! They have installed thousands of solar panels over gravesites! Obama has also correctly stated that we must update our electrical grid, another subsidized effort.

"We could have gotten a lot more health care if the Government were to build emergency rooms and "urgent care" facilities open to ALL - rich or poor."

The federal government is barred from doing this. The only type they are allowed to run are V.A. Facilities.

"Obama's plan - make this group legal."

I may be wrong as two left shoes but I can't recall Obama ever mentioning legalising them except in the traditional or fast track way, but nothing like Immunity or amnesty. We learned an important lesson when Reagan did that.

A little confused by your differings.

Are you saying Wind, Solar, and biofuel energy production is not subsidized here and in every Country which produces much energy using those sources? The argument is usually supported by claiming that oil is subsidized too. Please clarify your claim before we get into details.

Feds barred from running health care facilities? Is this in the Constitution? If not, couldn't this law be changed to allow the Feds to enter directly or causing these facilities to be created with Federal money support? Please point to the law barring.

I believe Obama is for AMNESTY - a path to citizenship by any other name? I think Obama has proposed what Reagan did - we called that AMNESTY. In your view, what is the difference between what Obama is proposing and what you would consider AMNESTY.

Looks like we agree on 2 of 5 then. Not a bad start. Obama continues the Bush wars with the same tactics and results. Atleast I notice the blind-eye press has stopped with the body counts and has pushed the wars to back pages - that may change soon as Obama changes the subject with McChrystal.

The other point we agree is the Economy is, "The Stimulus direction leads to an economy stabilized on the edge of depression and in continuous recession." I guess you agree we will have a lost decade - if we limit it to that? Do you also agreee that we can only sustain this "stabilization" as long as our ability to borrow 11%+ of our GDP (same as Greece) remains available?

Look forward to your clarifications. Thanks.

Please bear with me...I'm not avoiding , just trying to move these fat fingers around to find the regulation about government. Other than GOC's and GSE's..which are meant for a specific purpose (Such as Fannie Mae and Freddie mac are prohibited from dealing directly with the public)

"Are you saying Wind, Solar, and biofuel energy production is not subsidized here and in every Country which produces much energy using those sources?"

No, not by any means, I do believe there is some subsidy in all of those aspects including Oil. And I may be misreading your quote as well. My point is Yes, he wants to subsidize the growing alternative energy industries also, but I feel a bigger picture than just energy is at stake. And again try to follow a duttering old fool that I am...I do think Obama has the idea that we have a chance with our excellent technology skills and ample manufacturing ability to entr in to a new phase of manufacturing and development of alternative energy.

An example I will feebly give is the Hybrid vehicle, although we are finding ways around it, the battery technology that is involved with Hybrid vehicles is patented and locked down tight by the Japanese. They manufacture export that technology to everyone.

The US even though coming from behind has the capability of dominating the Wind market and provide energy at the same time, thereby reducing our need for oil and producing a whole new manufacturing industry. Solar is becoming a popular product as the technology advances and there are many manufacturers in the U.S. growing a business from it. I like this thought because it may well have the ability of "killing two birds with one stone" Energy/Jobs. The government will or may have to help the industry to get on it's feet with subsidies but will reap rewards later revenue increases.

"In your view, what is the difference between what Obama is proposing and what you would consider AMNESTY."

In my simplist view Obama still wants one to jump through some hoops before allowing the status change, what we did in the 80's was a basic walk in to any governemnt building and state "I'm from (name the country) and I am taking advantage of the amnesty" and poof! a Green card.

For the record, I say "we" because I was all behind Reagan's idea. What he and I did not see was the tsunami effect of new illegals waiting for the next Amnesty.

On the Economy I half agree with you, I was in favor of stimulating the government, what I was appaled by was the "free for all" manner in distribution. All economists agree in the same thing, Jobs are always the last part of a recovery, in your comment of a "Jobless recovery" I feel maybe you are asking for jobs first and recovery second, it doesn't work that way. IMO

And Thank you for the stimulating and thoughtful comments, I'm glad to be debating with an intelligent person I always have room for different thoughts and learning.

Let's consider illegal immigration and how Obama's plan is very much the same as the 1986 Reagan AMNESTY plan. We might change the names, but it is the same failed plan Obama supports. Could you point out the significant differences of the Obama plan and that which was already tried and -everyone agrees- failed to control illegal immigration and actually stimulated it many fold. Isn't this experience the reason we must NEVER OFFER AMNESTY?

Ed Meese in the NY Times - Support for 1986 and Obama today being the same failed plan.

Two decades ago, while serving as attorney general under President Ronald Reagan, I was in the thick of things as Congress debated the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The situation today bears uncanny similarities to what we went through then.

OK are you ready to be shocked at the stupidity of the Senate? Oh, you wouldn't be shocked? Well read on anyway just to reinforce your already correct opinion of our "leaders"

In exchange for allowing aliens to stay, he decided, border security and enforcement of immigration laws would be greatly strengthened — in particular, through sanctions against employers who hired illegal immigrants. If jobs were the attraction for illegal immigrants, then cutting off that option was crucial.
Beyond this, most illegal immigrants who could establish that they had resided in America continuously for five years would be granted temporary resident status, which could be upgraded to permanent residency after 18 months and, after another five years, to citizenship.

Note that this path to citizenship was not automatic. Indeed, the legislation stipulated several conditions: immigrants had to pay application fees, learn to speak English, understand American civics, pass a medical exam and register for military selective service. Those with convictions for a felony or three misdemeanors were ineligible.

Sound familiar?

These are pretty much the same provisions included in the new Senate proposal and cited by its supporters as proof that they have eschewed amnesty in favor of earned citizenship.

My original point was that Solar, Wind, and biofuel energy is not economical to produce in competition with oil and nuclear. By putting large investments into old uneconomical technology production, instead of research and development of promising new energy methods, we are fostering waste. We must develop economic energy -not tie ourselves to old existing uneconomical ideas. Rooting us to energy requiring breakthroughs is not realistic. If we could depend on breakthroughs on demand - then Cancer would have been cured long ago.

RE: ...I do think Obama has the idea that we have a chance with our excellent technology skills and ample manufacturing ability to entr in to a new phase of manufacturing and development of alternative energy.

The "new technologies" so far have more problems than they solve: You agree here too - Right?

But, without rare earth, Copenhagen means nothing. You buy a Prius hybrid car and think you're saving the planet. But each motor contains a kilo of neodymium and each battery more than 10 kilos of lanthanum, rare earth elements from China.

Green campaigners love wind turbines, but the permanent magnets used to manufacture a 3-megawatt turbine contain some two tons of rare earth. The head of China's Rare Earth Research Institute shows me one of those permanent magnets. He's well aware of the issues.

ZHAO ZENGQI, Baotou Rare Earth Research Institute: The environmental problems include air emissions with harmful elements, such as fluorine and sulfur, wastewater that contains excessive acid, and radioactive materials, too. China meets 95 percent of the world's demand for rare earth, and most of the separation and extraction is done here. So, the pollution stays in China, too.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/july-dec09/china_12-14.html

Dammit!! I hate it when I learn stuff I have to research! LOL.

Excellent points. Although my premise stands that even though we are relying on these items our ability to technically advance to have the advantage is still there. Every new "anything" will have some sort of drawback until someone intelligent comes along and eliminates that barrier. I do think he is on the right track in his thinking, and I think we can overcome this eventually. Regarding energy.

It's not perfect, but while other countries are developing employment and markets behind this we are going to be the consumer again rather than the producer.

I do hope you understand my thoughts.

I do hope you understand my thoughts. Certainly hope so.

Your faith is inspiring - build it and they will come?..

I can't help but wonder about the Obama vision - it looks like the European vision - heavy on the Socialism. Is that the End-Game I am to understand with Obama's direction - He seems to reject traditional American directions.

Is that it - and if so, what European Country is the model we should take cues from?

You may not agree - but I see the US as providing the greatest standard of living for the greatest number - Number 7 in the world, but number 1 considering our population/wealth. (Stats on request - Lichtenstein has better wealth per person, but FAR fewer persons benefiting.)

Again we agree that we should not make the same mistakes over and over again but when you say that the O man should be held accountable for policies BEYOND his control or authority I think you are being disingenuous.

It is not finger pointing to describe the situation or review HOW we got into this mess or WHO got us in this mess. What I think you are trying to illuminate is that the O man has not been able to propose or pass legislation to reverse or correct the abuses of the previous administration. On that we are in 100% agreement.

Where we part ways is that I think it is a legitimate argument to remind voters of HOW we got here least they in they in the President's own words "contemplate giving the keys back to the idiots who ran us into the ditch again". While I understand that it seems repetitive and can be construed as "finger pointing" I consider it education of a public that does not pay attention to the details of politics and instead votes on emotion. Without a clear understanding that giving the keys back to the GOP will NOT make things better and most likely worse the average voter will grasp for another round of "change" and we will find ourselves back in the dark ages of corporatism.

The O man could not have altered the TARP process more than he did, yes he did improve it to the degree that he could by withholding round two disbarment's and adding in what turned out to be feeble compensation limits but limits effective enough to get the blood sucking banks out of the program faster than otherwise would have happened.

The O man could not have altered the mentality of the MMS in time to avoid our oil chernobyl espectially with the cozy relationship the GOP has with BIGOIL.

Remember too that the GOP blocked funding for building a replacement for GITMO or funding the actual transfer of prisoners. True if he was a Repugnant he would have shoved it down congresses throat but he can not afford to alienate the blue dogs if he expects to get ANYTHING through congress.

The stability of Iraq and Afghanistan deteriorated during the last months of the campaign to a point that accelerating an Iraq withdrawal became unpractical and the option for Afghanistan came down to leaving the country to the Taliban and Al Qeda or adding more troops. Remember he waited 6 months in hopes of coming up with a better choice but none exists.

In regards to DADT, he is making sure that he doesn't make the same mistake Slick Willy did and spend political capital without the support of the generals. With the support of generals he defangs the GOP on this issue hence he needs to take what ever time he needs to get their support so he can win the VOTE in congress in an election year.

Elections are about choices and faced with what I know now about the O man and what I knew then about Hot head McClain and bubble head Palin there is still no question who I would and will vote for.

That does not mean I'll give the O man a free pass or withhold critism, just that the alternative is much, much worse!

The O man could not have altered the TARP process more than he did, yes he did improve it to the degree that he could by withholding round two disbarment's and adding in what turned out to be feeble compensation limits but limits effective enough to get the blood sucking banks out of the program faster than otherwise would have happened.

Why not? And what did he do to improve to his best ability?

Becasue TARP was already the law of the land and he did not have either the political support or the votes to repeal it. He DID add executive compensation restraints, He DID try to improve the home owner relief portion and is in the process of making a third attempt to improve this provision. He did pass credit card reform and is in the process of passing financial industry reform. Yes they do not contain all of the provision you or I would like but you have to start somewhere.

The O man could not have altered the mentality of the MMS in time to avoid our oil chernobyl espectially with the cozy relationship the GOP has with BIGOIL.

Why not..he hired Salazar to do just that. And what did he do to improve to the best of his ability?

The drilling permit for the Macando well that turned into the Gulf Chernobyl was issued by the Bush administration and the inspections, if you can call them that, were undertaken with rules promulgated by the Bush administration. Salazar, not my first pick either, could not have stopped this disaster. What he should have done was immediately clean hose and impose a moratorium on new permits until all rigs were reinspected but that is expecting too much given the GOP's symbiotic relationship with BIGOIL. They would have thrown a hissey fit on par with their actions during the health care reform debate!

Remember too that the GOP blocked funding for building a replacement for GITMO or funding the actual transfer of prisoners. True if he was a Repugnant he would have shoved it down congresses throat but he can not afford to alienate the blue dogs if he expects to get ANYTHING through congress.

How does GOP block on anything? Majority in both House and Senate, and Dem Pres...they could not block health care bill, so why is this a problem?

Seriously, have you been paying attention to the use of the fillibuster in the Senate. IF they don't want a bill even considered for a vote they are blocking it. So UNLESS a bill contains some "candy" for the GOP no bill gets voted on.

The stability of Iraq and Afghanistan deteriorated during the last months of the campaign to a point that accelerating an Iraq withdrawal became unpractical and the option for Afghanistan came down to leaving the country to the Taliban and Al Qeda or adding more troops. Remember he waited 6 months in hopes of coming up with a better choice but none exists.

Obama presented himself as a candidate who understood a war on terrorism cannot be won...because "win" can't be defined or achieved. Unpractical was not an option...it is tyhe primary reason I voted for him...I thought he was pragmatic.

Itoo was hopeful that he could get us out of Iraq and bring a sense of purpose to Afghanistan and I think he is doing exactly what he promised. We cannot walk away from Afghanistan without leaving behind a functioning country able to contain, (not eliminate) extremists. I agree you can not defeat an idea but you can marginalize the idea by demonstrating the success of the alternatives and therefore diminish their power to recruit and fund their operations.

In regards to DADT, he is making sure that he doesn't make the same mistake Slick Willy did and spend political capital without the support of the generals. With the support of generals he defangs the GOP on this issue hence he needs to take what ever time he needs to get their support so he can win the VOTE in congress in an election year.

If you are already ceding to the fact he will break his promise on this...how can you ever resolves what he has promised as anything but a flat out lie?

To steal a line from the movie Aladdin "Patience Iargo, patience." I have every confidence that he will sing a repeal of DADT. Even what is left of the moderate wing of the GOP supports its repeal.

Elections are about choices and faced with what I know now about the O man and what I knew then about Hot head McClain and bubble head Palin there is still no question who I would and will vote for.

Agree I couldn't and wouldn't have voted for McCain/Palin. But i would've voted for Ron Paul had I known what i know now...why didn't you even mention him?

Because until we eliminate the Electoral college a third party candidate cannot win the Presidency. If you are truly a "practical" person you have to remember the effect of Florida voters casting a vote for Nader! I wonder how many of the 60,000 Floridians who voted for Ralph would do it again? The blood of our troops and the extent of our financial crisis is on their hands too!

Okay...I have answered every single point you made...for my effort here, will you give me the same in return? Not just hopes and dreams either...if I missed good policy, please show it to me! And still waiting on direct answer on this:

Beyond his control or authority? In what way?

The depth of the recession was not a result of any of his policies or even votes. The status of the two wars were not the result of his actions or in the case of the B/C regime, inaction's. The decision of the GOP to oppose ANY policy proposed by him was not under his control. The Senate GOP's use of the filibuster is beyond his control. Even the votes of Dems Senators is beyond his control.

Lastly and equally important he cannot control the narrative that the media decides deserves coverage and he can not control the lies and venom spewing forth from Faux News.

He HAS issued executive orders to deliver many of his proimses and he HAS used the Bully Pulpit to advance his vison for the country. Remember policitcs is the are of the possible not the art of the perfect.

RC.. my dearest friend who is not a racist... THAT was funny!!!

but, but, but.....

sad thing is many think RC is joking ! (you are aren't you?) lol

RC this would be a good place for those pics I sent ya !

Just wanted to try and get into the mindset of someone who is insane.

Just wanted to try and get into the mindset of someone who is insane.

Unless you have been there, you will never know. :~}

She did that to save her sorry ass. prior to the challenge she was not "leading" the charge to reform Wall St. Yes she did get her name on the legislation but further "rooting" around will reveal that it was written by other Senators and House members!

If you wan the change the O amn promised work to get him 60 real progressive votes in the Senate and a solid 220 progressive House votes then you can find out if he has been a practical politician or just another lying SOB.

As you and others have alluded to what passed was NOT the bill he wanted but the bill he could get. If he had 60 real progressive votes in the Senate we WOULD have a public option and we would have coverage beginning in 2012 instead of 2014.

Obama needs to stop blaming and own up to it. We were three trillion dollars in debt under Bush but now thirteen trillion dollars in debt. That's where all my money went. Obama complains about what he inherited. He didn't inherit it he voted for it as a senator then begged to fix it with a campaigned run, nothing was inherited. His administration has us so in debt that they can't even figure out a budget. The "yes we can", man turned into a no we can't man.