Can Anyone Endorse Rush's Hope?

[Guest]

Posters in this forum come from a wide range of political beliefs. That's good. That's democracy. That's the system that the founding fathers so brilliantly created more than 200 years ago.

But can anyone support that statement that Rush Limbaugh made on his radio show recently? I heard it reported that he said that his feelings for the new administration can be summed up in four words: "I hope Obama fails."

I found the report so unbelievable that I Googled the topic and was lead to Limbaugh's web site where his statement is pesented in context and in it's entirety. Here's the link...http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html

It's one thing to hold strong political beliefs and positions. But we do all live in and support democracy. It seems to me that at some point in each political cycle a winner and loser will be determined thru a democratic election. From that point until the next political cycle, it seems to me that Americans should give some level of support -- ranging from passive to enthusiastic -- to their elected representatives until the next election cycle begins. After all, it is our country and the democratic process applies to and benefits all of us, regardless of political stripe.

How can a buffoon like Rush Limbaugh make statements like this and even call himself an American? It's attitudes like this that have so fractured our political system that it has frozen and has totally failed to serve the people. Hopefully most people will react to statement's like this in the same way that Limbaugh's own staff did when he said the words on the radio -- they laughed. But hopefully people will also react with disgust with Limbaugh's distasteful and stupid foolishness.

[Guest]

Note that Limbaugh does NOT say that he wants the country to get worse under Obama. He specifically says that he does not want Obama to succeed in pushing his liberal agenda in a direction that he (Limbaugh) does not agree with and what he believes will be bad for the country. This is no different than someone saying that he hoped Bush did not succeed in getting Congress to endorse the Iraq war or his tax cut provisions.

I think it's time to tone down the rhetoric that views like this, while contrary to one's own, are "un-American".

[Guest]

I agree 100% with Rush and here's why.

Article from former Clinton Presidential Adviser.

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/01/21/the-obama-presidency-here-comes-socialism/#more-530

[Guest]

I agree 100% with Rush and here's why.

Article from former Clinton Presidential Adviser.

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/01/21/the-obama-presidency-here-comes-socialism/#more-530
:agree:

[Guest]

Kahuna - either you have been living on another planet during the GWB administration or you have ignored the liberal press, the liberal TV talk shows, and the Bill Mahers of the world. The things said about W have been horrible and the standard you want applied to Obama should have also applied to W. You have a nice platform here on TOTV and try to read you daily pronouncements but I couldn't let this one go by without a small response.
Rush does go overboard but what he says is balanced out by Maher and the SNL group.
Hope it warms up there so everyone can get outside away from the computers.
Irish

[Guest]

i agree 100% with rush and here's why.

Article from former clinton presidential adviser.

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2009/01/21/the-obama-presidency-here-comes-socialism/#more-530i think dick morris is a genius and his book fleeced is next on my list.

[Guest]

i think dick morris is a genius and his book fleeced is next on my list.

No doubt when Morris worked for Clinton he was a dope, but now that he's on FAUX news, he's a genius, along with Field Marshal Hannity and Billo the Clown.

[Guest]

No doubt when Morris worked for Clinton he was a dope, but now that he's on FAUX news, he's a genius, along with Field Marshal Hannity and Billo the Clown.Bill-O's clown act must be working... he has the highest rated news talk show on cable TV.

[Guest]

I find it amusing that the left is upset with Rush's comments. This is after eight years of the most venal attacks on President Bush. Most personal in nature.

[Guest]

I've lived in a socialistic country. I don't want America to become one. Unfortunately, it is well on it's way. If Obama/Democrats pass universal health care there will be no turning back. I'm sure George Soros is one happy man.

[Guest]

Hey, where's the respect for the President you all so demanded for Bush???

If Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama to fail, he wants America to fail. Is that what you all want too??? :shrug:

I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone with any intelligence would listen to that man. Rush Limbaugh is one step away from a skinhead. He's a sick, sorry individual that feels he must yell and rant to get his point (when he has one) across.

Fortunately, Limbaugh will be proven wrong -- yet again. ;)

[Guest]

You mean like the respect Obama gave Bush at his inaugural address. The booing, while not Obama's fault, was real classy, also.

[Guest]

"If Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama to fail, he wants America to fail. Is that what you all want too??? "

No!! That's NOT what Rush said. You obviously disagreed with all or most of Bush's policies and obviously wanted him to fail in enacting those policies because you thought that that was bad for the country. Yet, I presume (hope) that you were not hoping that America would fail as well. So, yes, it is very easy to hope that Obama fails (to enact his policies) because you WANT America to succeed.

[Guest]

Why do we do this?
We have this nice , friendly forum where we can find out all about the Villages and the roundabouts , the CYV pros and cons, the restaurants and lots, lots more, and we start talking politics and we're tossing grenades at one another.
It is my opinion that nothing any one says on this political forum will change any one's mind about anything.

[Guest]

Why do we do this?
We have this nice , friendly forum where we can find out all about the Villages and the roundabouts , the CYV pros and cons, the restaurants and lots, lots more, and we start talking politics and we're tossing grenades at one another.
It is my opinion that nothing any one says on this political forum will change any one's mind about anything.We do it because there is a political thread and, by nature, the political process in our 2 party system is adversarial. No one is forced to go to the political thread. There are pleanty of happier places on the TOTV. I, for one, value much of the wisdom that has been shared on the political thread by both sides. It's just like the television: you can turn on Bill O or Keith Oberman or you can turn on reruns of Father Knows Best.....

[Guest]

that there are two way streets.

The one way street that is pounded most often...if you are not for my guy you must for the opposition, therefore where is your head at?

To each his own but it does wear thin....

It makes their lives simpler as Nancy Pelosi professes...if it is from or for the opposition I am against it....doesn't get much shallower than that....our third in line for the POTUS (GOD please keep Obama and Biden safe).

BTK

[Guest]

Hey, where's the respect for the President you all so demanded for Bush???

If Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama to fail, he wants America to fail. Is that what you all want too??? :shrug:

I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone with any intelligence would listen to that man. Rush Limbaugh is one step away from a skinhead. He's a sick, sorry individual that feels he must yell and rant to get his point (when he has one) across.

Fortunately, Limbaugh will be proven wrong -- yet again. ;)

I absolutely demand that you post the exact quote where ANYONE in this country...ANYONE, Limbaugh included...said they wanted "America to fail".....or to even imply it, but simply say that the SOCIALIST programs that would lead us to socialism should fail because he did not want socialism in this country.

Why can you not listen except to what you want to hear ????

I would expect that someone who is always bringing up her journalism degree would be loath to misquote someone...so as a journalist, please correct your error, as NOBODY ever said what are repeating in this forum.

[Guest]

Posters in this forum come from a wide range of political beliefs. That's good. That's democracy. That's the system that the founding fathers so brilliantly created more than 200 years ago.

But can anyone support that statement that Rush Limbaugh made on his radio show recently? I heard it reported that he said that his feelings for the new administration can be summed up in four words: "I hope Obama fails."

I found the report so unbelievable that I Googled the topic and was lead to Limbaugh's web site where his statement is pesented in context and in it's entirety. Here's the link...http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html

It's one thing to hold strong political beliefs and positions. But we do all live in and support democracy. It seems to me that at some point in each political cycle a winner and loser will be determined thru a democratic election. From that point until the next political cycle, it seems to me that Americans should give some level of support -- ranging from passive to enthusiastic -- to their elected representatives until the next election cycle begins. After all, it is our country and the democratic process applies to and benefits all of us, regardless of political stripe.

How can a buffoon like Rush Limbaugh make statements like this and even call himself an American? It's attitudes like this that have so fractured our political system that it has frozen and has totally failed to serve the people. Hopefully most people will react to statement's like this in the same way that Limbaugh's own staff did when he said the words on the radio -- they laughed. But hopefully people will also react with disgust with Limbaugh's distasteful and stupid foolishness.

If you listened or read the very link you provided, then you would be aware how out of context you have placed this.

I heard this on the media while they were nagging about it and thus investigated it since I dont listen to any of the right or left wing zealots. And you know what was said and in what context.

I suppose after all the out of context crap we have heard the last few years it will now continue as it did during the primary and general election.

I am NOT defending Rush Limbaugh...he can do that for himself....I am irate that this kind of out of context criticism from supposedly intelligent people is going to be used to protect this President as it was used to elect him.

[Guest]

Posters in this forum come from a wide range of political beliefs. That's good. That's democracy. That's the system that the founding fathers so brilliantly created more than 200 years ago.

But can anyone support that statement that Rush Limbaugh made on his radio show recently? I heard it reported that he said that his feelings for the new administration can be summed up in four words: "I hope Obama fails."

I found the report so unbelievable that I Googled the topic and was lead to Limbaugh's web site where his statement is pesented in context and in it's entirety. Here's the link...http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html

It's one thing to hold strong political beliefs and positions. But we do all live in and support democracy. It seems to me that at some point in each political cycle a winner and loser will be determined thru a democratic election. From that point until the next political cycle, it seems to me that Americans should give some level of support -- ranging from passive to enthusiastic -- to their elected representatives until the next election cycle begins. After all, it is our country and the democratic process applies to and benefits all of us, regardless of political stripe.

How can a buffoon like Rush Limbaugh make statements like this and even call himself an American? It's attitudes like this that have so fractured our political system that it has frozen and has totally failed to serve the people. Hopefully most people will react to statement's like this in the same way that Limbaugh's own staff did when he said the words on the radio -- they laughed. But hopefully people will also react with disgust with Limbaugh's distasteful and stupid foolishness.

I am so irate at this thread that I must further comment.

Since you quickly jump on here and start a thread about a person who, by his own admission is very hard right, and are totally 100% silent and mute on the comments from the far left, one can only make the assumption that you condone those or you surely would have started a thread condemning them because

"in each political cycle a winner and loser will be determined thru a democratic election. From that point until the next political cycle, it seems to me that Americans should give some level of support -- ranging from passive to enthusiastic -- to their elected representatives until the next election cycle begins."

OR, is it that it is not acceptable UNLESS you agree ?

Listen, Limbaugh is an idiot from all I have read, but had folks been on here quoting the Air America crowd or Michael Moore, you would have dismissed them out of hand.

[Guest]

You mean like the respect Obama gave Bush at his inaugural address. The booing, while not Obama's fault, was real classy, also.

Sally, I actually felt sorry for Bush when he was booed, but that had nothing to do with President Obama and everything to do with George W. Bush's failed policies and lack of understanding of the American people. :sad:

[Guest]

I absolutely demand that you post the exact quote where ANYONE in this country...ANYONE, Limbaugh included...said they wanted "America to fail".....or to even imply it, but simply say that the SOCIALIST programs that would lead us to socialism should fail because he did not want socialism in this country.

Why can you not listen except to what you want to hear ????

I would expect that someone who is always bringing up her journalism degree would be loath to misquote someone...so as a journalist, please correct your error, as NOBODY ever said what are repeating in this forum.

Bucco, let's get a few things straight. First, you're the one that keeps bringing up my journalism degree -- not me. A Journalism Degree does not a journalist make. i.e. Sarah Palin. (Bad example -- at least I read!)

Second, you can demand something of me until the cows come home . . . it ain't gonna happen! This was not a direct quote, hence the absence of quote marks.

Third, it is my opinion, that if a person wants our President to fail or even his policies to fail, it is then the same as them wanting America to fail. It's all the same. Bush policies failed. Get it??? Our former President failed. And look at the mess he left behind.

And Fourth, your CAPITAL LETTERS don't scare me, so calm down! :laugh:

[Guest]

Bucco, let's get a few things straight. First, you're the one that keeps bringing up my journalism degree -- not me. A Journalism Degree does not a journalist make. i.e. Sarah Palin. (Bad example -- at least I read!)

Second, you can demand something of me until the cows come home . . . it ain't gonna happen! This was not a direct quote, hence the absence of quote marks.

Third, it is my opinion, that if a person wants our President to fail or even his policies to fail, it is then the same as them wanting America to fail. It's all the same. Bush policies failed. Get it??? Our former President failed. And look at the mess he left behind.

And Fourth, your CAPITAL LETTERS don't scare me, so calm down! :laugh:

Thanks for at least admitting you put words in the mans mouth he never uttered !!!!

[Guest]

*

[Guest]

I'm really surprised that some of you really endorse Limbaugh's outrageous hope for President Obama, and by inference our country. I'm disappointed as well. I can tell you with absolute certainty that if John McCain had won the election and some left-wing nutcase expressed the same wish for him, I would be equally outraged.

It's exactly this type of venomous partisanship that has kept our government frozen for the last four Presidential administrations. Rather than using his platform to implore the inclusion of conservative objectives in legislation being created, or encourage conservative legislators to introduce new legislation which he feels important, instead he makes a disgusting personal attack on the new leader of our country. What's even more offensive is that he's taking this position even though the President seems to be making every effort to make his relationships with Congress inclusive of the desires of both parties.

The Republicans are not going to get everything they want in the legislation of the next couple of Congresses. They had a chance when they were in the majority for more than half of the last four Presidential administrations and did not make sufficient progress to satisfy the electorate. Different candidates were elected which shifted the majority to the Democrats. That's the way it was and that's the way it is. The real legislative leaders are those that can negotiate for what they feel is important legislation, even when in the minority.

Rush Limbaugh has elected not to use his position to stimulate the achievement of conservative objectives in the legislative process. Instead he mounted a venomous and outrageous personal attack.

I refuse to look backward, as some posters here seem wont to do. It does little good. If the members of one party or the other frustrated or even stopped the legislative process for personal or idealogical reasons, a pox on all their houses. I refuse to look backward in search of a justification for similar conduct in the future. Our county cannot afford more of the same. Besides a backward look might not provide a particularly satisfying picture of the party and idealogical principles which Limbaugh says he supports.

But why should I be surprised? Limbaugh himself says he's no longer a Republican. He seems to have established his own party, one based on the most extreme far-right ideaology and one which is totally unwilling to participate in the democratic process. For Rush, it seems to be I only want it my way and no variance from my personal beliefs will be acceptable. If I can't win then I'll torch the whole government and the political process.

Those of you who endorse Limbaugh, God bless you. The next four years -- maybe eight -- will be long and frustrating. I will not characterize Limbaugh's statement as anything other than disgusting and anti-democracy. I will support our new President until such time as he performs in a way to lose my support, just as George Bush did after I voted for him for his first term but the second.

[Guest]

Bill-O's clown act must be working... he has the highest rated news talk show on cable TV.

No doubt, every parent in America wants their daughter to work for "Billo". Who else could work for a major corporation and sexually harass a female employee to the tune of over $10 million and keep his job!

Having worked for a mojor corporation and seeing behavior not even approaching anything "Billo" did, result in termination, it says volume about "FAUX" news and the lemmings who continually listen to this sexist pig!

[Guest]

The political discourse in DC is getting a little less civil all of the time. When President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsberg to the Court the confirmation vote was 96-3. She was at one time the chief counsel to the ACLU. The GOP Senators felt the President got to get his choice approved. When it came to President Bush's choice of Samual Alieto the vote was 58-42. Over the years the Dems in the Senate had a larger political agenda. It was to damage the Bush Administration at all cost. I suspect the GOP won't forget that soon. All the worse for us all.
Oh, and read what Rush actually said.

[Guest]

I'm really surprised that some of you really endorse Limbaugh's outrageous hope for President Obama, and by inference our country
__________________________________________________ ___-

VK...please post the names of those on here who did what you say above ????

Thanks

[Guest]

Those of you who endorse Limbaugh, God bless you.
______________________________________________-

VK...please post the names of those who do what you say above ??

[Guest]

And the Randi Rhodes, Bill Maher and the after-midnight crowd are any better or different than Limbaugh? They are all entertainers, paid by revenue from advertising sponsors and at the mercy of ratings.

They do mirror segments of the populace, and they do bring out strong feelings - pro and con.

Now let's take one of the more flamboyant positions, that being an Obama failure. It's safe to say that we all want him to be a successful president, but that success is measured by different criteria, depending on one's political leanings.

As a progressive neanderthal, my criteria for a successful Obama presidency would be:

1. End of the Iraq War, with an Iraqi government in place that actually believes in human rights for Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd, Christian, Jew, Druid and whomever/whatever else lives in that geography. Anything less is failure.

2. End of the Afghani War - with the same points as above.

3. Elimination of al-Qa'ida and its subordinate and satellite entities from this planet, in that they no longer present a threat to the Western world. Anything less is failure.

4. Reduction in government spending, especially in social programs geared to increase the dependency of targeted groups toward government aid for long-term existence. If that means some of the Obama administration's pet programs don't become law, that's a success.

That's just a few of what I consider a successful Obama presidency. So, "failure" is a subjective term.

Let's remember that "all Americans" didn't vote for Mr. Obama. Many voted for him not because of his position on issues, but because they just either wanted somebody who didn't seem like a continuum of the previous administration, or because he is of like ethnic background, or because he was the media darling.

He does have a political honeymoon ahead, still owes many political debts, and has the luxury (as all new administrations do) of saying that things are worse than he thought, so the "rules change" is the first of the "changes" to occur.

Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Rhodes, Maher, and all the others - even as entertaining commentators - provide a lot of good, and have done so - pro and con - very well. We would all be much less informed, and probably less interested in many issues had it not been for these left-and-right-leaning commentators. They make us think! They force us to investigate! They have the luxury of devoting a lot of time into watching and listening, and give us information we would not have received from the broadcast media - also dependent on dog food commercial revenue for their survival.

So, if the administration can't take criticism from these commentators, and if public criticism is to be silenced as "fairness," the term describing that policy is Faschism.

[Guest]

And the Randi Rhodes, Bill Maher and the after-midnight crowd are any better or different than Limbaugh? They are all entertainers, paid by revenue from advertising sponsors and at the mercy of ratings.

They do mirror segments of the populace, and they do bring out strong feelings - pro and con.

Now let's take one of the more flamboyant positions, that being an Obama failure. It's safe to say that we all want him to be a successful president, but that success is measured by different criteria, depending on one's political leanings.

As a progressive neanderthal, my criteria for a successful Obama presidency would be:

1. End of the Iraq War, with an Iraqi government in place that actually believes in human rights for Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd, Christian, Jew, Druid and whomever/whatever else lives in that geography. Anything less is failure.

2. End of the Afghani War - with the same points as above.

3. Elimination of al-Qa'ida and its subordinate and satellite entities from this planet, in that they no longer present a threat to the Western world. Anything less is failure.

4. Reduction in government spending, especially in social programs geared to increase the dependency of targeted groups toward government aid for long-term existence. If that means some of the Obama administration's pet programs don't become law, that's a success.

That's just a few of what I consider a successful Obama presidency. So, "failure" is a subjective term.

Let's remember that "all Americans" didn't vote for Mr. Obama. Many voted for him not because of his position on issues, but because they just either wanted somebody who didn't seem like a continuum of the previous administration, or because he is of like ethnic background, or because he was the media darling.

He does have a political honeymoon ahead, still owes many political debts, and has the luxury (as all new administrations do) of saying that things are worse than he thought, so the "rules change" is the first of the "changes" to occur.

Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Rhodes, Maher, and all the others - even as entertaining commentators - provide a lot of good, and have done so - pro and con - very well. We would all be much less informed, and probably less interested in many issues had it not been for these left-and-right-leaning commentators. They make us think! They force us to investigate! They have the luxury of devoting a lot of time into watching and listening, and give us information we would not have received from the broadcast media - also dependent on dog food commercial revenue for their survival.

So, if the administration can't take criticism from these commentators, and if public criticism is to be silenced as "fairness," the term describing that policy is Faschism.


Well said Steve...entertainers is it and if we taking Liimbaugh to the wood shed, let us take them ALL there.

This quote from you post is the one that is scaring me terribly...

"So, if the administration can't take criticism from these commentators, and if public criticism is to be silenced as "fairness," the term describing that policy is Faschism."

I am so tired of anytime I disagree with the President or his colleagues being either called a racist or having it implied...being told that I must be rich, etc and now we are taking quotes from the far end and shoving it up our noses...this along with the attempt to silence ANY comment but allowing those you mention ON BOTH SIDES and add to that the Michael Moore's etc.

Why VK does not include those in his tirade is beyond me !

[Guest]

Don't get me wrong. I think it's a sad commentary on America if any of the "political performers" get much attention at all. While I didn't support Sarah Palin, I thought Tina Fey's characterization of her was in bad taste. Same for those who are regularly featured in the Sunday Funnies segment of George Stefanopoulous's show on Sunday morning. Other than watching those segments during that show, I never tune in any of the others. I do occasionally watch Bill O'Reilly. I know he leans to the conservative side, but I find his commentary and interviews often enlightening.

Most of the "entertainment segments" tend to be impersonations emphasizing personal characteristics -- Gerry Ford falling, many of Bill Clinton's personal proclivities, the senior Bush's nasal speaking style, George Bush's vocabulary, etc. Some of the other more serious pundits, ranging from Sean Hannity to Keith Olberman and all in-between, seem to argue using selectively-chosen facts or examples. Irritating for one side or the other, but rising nowhere near the loathsome level of Limbaugh's recent wish. Only Ann Coulter employs the same chalk-on-the-blackboard style. But even she hasn't lowered herself to the level which Limbaugh sank to yesterday.

While one may be critical of the taste of many of the "political entertainers", they haven't lowered themselves to the venomous and outrageous wish cited by Rush Limbaugh. It's the off-the-scale outrageousness of his statement that precipitated my comment.

[Guest]

As a progressive neanderthal, my criteria for a successful Obama presidency would be:

1. End of the Iraq War, with an Iraqi government in place that actually believes in human rights for Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd, Christian, Jew, Druid and whomever/whatever else lives in that geography. Anything less is failure.

2. End of the Afghani War - with the same points as above.

3. Elimination of al-Qa'ida and its subordinate and satellite entities from this planet, in that they no longer present a threat to the Western world. Anything less is failure.

4. Reduction in government spending, especially in social programs geared to increase the dependency of targeted groups toward government aid for long-term existence. If that means some of the Obama administration's pet programs don't become law, that's a success.

That's just a few of what I consider a successful Obama presidency. So, "failure" is a subjective term.

Steve, I kind of like your list. But your "anything less is a failure" condition seems an unattainable condition. Kind of like -- win the Super Bowl, but if you don't win by six touchdowns, you're a failure.

I'd be very happy if President Obama substantially achieved all of the items on your list. Even that might be difficult because...
How does one measure what a government "believes"? It sure isn't what they say, we all know that. I'd consider #1 a success if there was realtive peace among all those groups within the geography of Iraq after we withdraw our military. If they start a civil or sectarian war, I'll write the whole Iraqi experience off as just a very bad idea.

On the Afghanistan criteria, you might as well consider Obama a failure right now. The Russians finally gave up after ten years, and they had close to a hundred thousand troops trying to quell the war lords who run those mountains. Maybe Obama might have some success diplomatically, but we sure can't win militarily. I guess I might be willing to apply the same standard as Iraq -- if they aren't killing or threatening people, particularly us, I'd be relatively happy. I'm not even going to address human rights and the Taliban. We don't have enough soldiers, money or time to force a culture of two thousand years to act like we'd like them to.

I don't know how you eliminate al Quaeda when we don't know precisely who belongs and who doesn't. A primary measure that I'd call successful is a meaningful decline in terrorist attacks. Alternatively, we're stuck with a standard of "if we simply declare victory against al Quaeda, we won". I don't like that one anywhere near as much as widespread relative peace.

If Obama can begin to substantially reduce annual deficit spending within four years, I'd consider it a big success. If he effectively spends a little money on education, improving healthcare for a greater number of Americans, and decreases unemployment, I'll consider it a success. Because if he does those things, I know he'll have to cut a bunch of unneccessary government spending in order to do it. But the possibility that he could achieve a balanced budget and begin to whittle at the national debt seems unachievable right now.

But in general, I think meaningful progress towards all of those things would provide a good measure of success or failure.

[Guest]

I've read and re-read the transcript, and I just don't see anything venomous at all.

There are darned few conservatives who endorse much in the liberal agenda, and despise quasi-socialism passionately. To not want to see any expansion of the liberal agenda by government mandate is not venomous, but honest.

The republican party doesn't speak for all conservatives (or progressive neanderthals like me) - far from it. The differences between the two major parties are very slight, and within both parties are left-center-and-right, with select issues or family history being more the reason why people claim certain party membership.

Mr. Limbaugh did something unique. He stayed true to his beliefs, in spite of others bending-at-the-knee in the hopes of obtaining favored treatment or not losing position or power.

I don't remember seeing much in the way of righteous indignation over Rep. Pelosi's ten-pound-anvil comment and similar remarks over the last year. Was it because she was being honest in her feelings? Don't others get the same pass?

Not wanting socialism expanded, government dependency expanded, etc. etc. is the "to fail" within the Limbaugh transcript.

Charlie Daniels said it best:
And we may have done a little bit of fighting amongst ourselves
But you outside people best leave us alone
Cause we'll all stick together and you can take that to the bank
That's the cowboys and the hippies and the rebels and the yanks

We can squabble internally, disagree, not want certain legislation to pass, and hope some programs start, stop or never happen. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's actually the sign of a healthy democracy. To expect everyone to march in lock-step to the tune played by the Obama administration is not democracy, but reminiscent of Berlin in 1939 and another charismatic leader. And before I get accused of saying that Mr. Obama is another Hr. Hitler, the comparison is towards how the followers were so passionate towards their leader that they condemned everyone who was not of their ilk. That seems to be what's now happening to anyone who does not want the platform planks to become part of the governmental structure.

I too hope that certain planks of the Obama platform crack and break. No different than all those who hoped planks within the Bush platform crumbled. That is normal, and honest people will admit they hope much of the campaign rhetoric and promises wither on the vine. That is not un-American, that IS American - First Amendment at its best. Or is it that freedoms are okay - as long as you agree with the administration?

[Guest]

when Sean Hanity interviewed Rush Limbaugh the other night he asked "do you really want Obama to fail?"

Limbaugh responded "yes if his policies are socialist."

I agree with Limbaugh and most Americans. I do not want to live in a socialist country. To quote Margret Thatcher on socialism, "the problem with socialism is that we too soon run out of other people's money."

[Guest]

...

How does one measure what a government "believes"? It sure isn't what they say, we all know that. I'd consider #1 a success if there was realtive peace among all those groups within the geography of Iraq after we withdraw our military. If they start a civil or sectarian war, I'll write the whole Iraqi experience off as just a very bad idea.
...

...

This whole Iraq War issue is really getting to me, because there is little understanding on why it was a good idea at the time, and forget about all the WMD junk.

After 9/11 there was a feeling in this nation worse than Pearl Harbor ever had been. The hit was on the mainland, had tremendous press coverage, and the visuals shown over-and-over again all over the world placed this country in even more risk.

Hopefully, this analogy will help. You are living where there are several bullies, all who know each other and have a history of alliances against the peaceful folk in the neighborhood. Your kid comes home, having been beaten up by a couple of the bulllies, but he can't really identify specifically which ones did it. Your spouse gets threats as well. The way you fix this is you grab one of the bullies by the throat, beat the stuffing out of him and let it be known that you expect there may be others involved, but this bully is getting the punishment and there's more to be given out if your family has any more problems. The other bullies witness what happened to one of their own, and they back off. As neanderthal as it sounds, that's what works with that population, and it is all they respect and understand.

After 9/11, New York, DC and PA were our kids that got beat up. The bullies involved included not just al-Qa'ida, but those who support them logistically and provide safe havens. There was a public upcry wanting "something" to be done other than just waiting for the next set of atttacks to happen. Sobbing to the UN wasn't going to stop future attacks, but taking one of the bullies behind the woodshed and giving him what-for would do it. The US had to show the terrorist world that we wouldn't just do a bunch of defensive protections (e.g., setting up TSA), but would bring the fire-and-brimstone down upon those who would do us harm. The "you're either with us or against us" was really aimed at al-Qa'ida and its potential allies to show we would not be the international doormat, and that they hit the wrong target. We bite back, and deep.

All of the "where were the WMD" and that stuff just shows how folks don't understand the mindset of those who would do us harm, and what is needed to keep them (and those who may think it's worthwhile to get on their bandwagon) at bay. We have spent a lot off our resources on the Iraq War, and on homeland security at all levels of government, and it has worked - the bullies have bothered others, but have left us alone. The Brits and others have understood this, and that's why they have allied these years at no small cost to them.

So, all those who wring their hands at the Iraq War seem to have short memories on what the state of the nation was for many weeks after 9/11, and also no understanding of how to deal with terrorism - at the neighborhood or international level.

You can condemn Pres. Bush all you want, but he and his advisors understood the state of the nation, and what the state of the nation would deteriorate to should there be another significant terrorist hit. He get's my salute for his actions, knowing full well that the Michael Moore Media types would treat him badly.

I hope that Mr. Obama and his advisors have half the backbone that Mr. Bush and his folk have shown. Otherwise, "change" will be pretty limp, and the bulllies will sniff around our neighborhood again.

[Guest]

I agree. Rush is not a typical American. He is another money grubber that preys on situation. Bush made him a fortune. I Obama succeeds Rush has lost his thunder.

Don
Nashville, IL

[Guest]

I've read and re-read the transcript, and I just don't see anything venomous at all.

There are darned few conservatives who endorse much in the liberal agenda, and despise quasi-socialism passionately. To not want to see any expansion of the liberal agenda by government mandate is not venomous, but honest.

The republican party doesn't speak for all conservatives (or progressive neanderthals like me) - far from it. The differences between the two major parties are very slight, and within both parties are left-center-and-right, with select issues or family history being more the reason why people claim certain party membership.

Mr. Limbaugh did something unique. He stayed true to his beliefs, in spite of others bending-at-the-knee in the hopes of obtaining favored treatment or not losing position or power.

I don't remember seeing much in the way of righteous indignation over Rep. Pelosi's ten-pound-anvil comment and similar remarks over the last year. Was it because she was being honest in her feelings? Don't others get the same pass?

Not wanting socialism expanded, government dependency expanded, etc. etc. is the "to fail" within the Limbaugh transcript.

Charlie Daniels said it best:
And we may have done a little bit of fighting amongst ourselves
But you outside people best leave us alone
Cause we'll all stick together and you can take that to the bank
That's the cowboys and the hippies and the rebels and the yanks

We can squabble internally, disagree, not want certain legislation to pass, and hope some programs start, stop or never happen. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's actually the sign of a healthy democracy. To expect everyone to march in lock-step to the tune played by the Obama administration is not democracy, but reminiscent of Berlin in 1939 and another charismatic leader. And before I get accused of saying that Mr. Obama is another Hr. Hitler, the comparison is towards how the followers were so passionate towards their leader that they condemned everyone who was not of their ilk. That seems to be what's now happening to anyone who does not want the platform planks to become part of the governmental structure.

I too hope that certain planks of the Obama platform crack and break. No different than all those who hoped planks within the Bush platform crumbled. That is normal, and honest people will admit they hope much of the campaign rhetoric and promises wither on the vine. That is not un-American, that IS American - First Amendment at its best. Or is it that freedoms are okay - as long as you agree with the administration?

See right there in bold is the difference between you and I SteveZ. I never liked Bush, but I never wanted him to fail. I kept hoping he would succeed. That would help America. It's so sad that anyone in this great country would want their President to fail. :ohdear: Shame on you!

[Guest]

Why can't people separate ideas from party. Read what Rush actually said and you might just understand it. I disagree with Rush on lots of his comments. However I completely agree with this one. And again read it all the way through and don't take 6 words out of context. He does not say he wants Obama to fail. What he says is that he wants his socialist agenda to fail. Big difference. I also want Obama's socialist agenda to fail. I want very much for him to be a successful president, I just don't define success the same way some of you do. I want him to fix our economy. I want him to keep our country safe. I want our quality of life protected. I want our standard of living to improve. I just don't agree with how he wants to get there.

There is no country in the world where socialism has worked. It will not work here either. So in great support of my country, I want our presidents socialism agenda to fail. Same as Rush.

And SteveZ, right on.

[Guest]

Kahuna:

You have eyes to see but you don't see and you have ears to hear and you don't hear, you have a mind to think, yet you don't think. I don't mean this to be rude, just to emphasize what your statements tell us.

Rush Limbaugh is no bafoon. He is spot on with his statement and I whole heartedly agree with his premise. As many others have stated here, Rush is saying he hope Obama's policies fail. He is taking this country down the socialist, Marxist road. An equally frightening site to see is how many people accept this and have lost sight of what the founding fathers had in mind for this country. Socialism has no room for liberty and freedom of speech or any other freedoms that are not mandated. Read your history. If you really think that Rush is a bafoon, then I'm sorry for you.

But put Rush and his statement aside and go study socialism and Marxism in other countries like UK, France, Russia and many more. Then see if you can't find some common ground with Rush, like him as an individual or not.

Bafoon is not a description for Rush. You should reserve that title for many of the 535.

Respectfully Tall

[Guest]

So let's give this angle a try for all that hope Obama succeeds.

What specific things does Obama support that you support and hope he succeeds at changing or implementing?

Give us specific policies and regulations, don't just say "change" or "fixing the economy." Maybe include why or how you believe it will make the county better.

[Guest]

No doubt, every parent in America wants their daughter to work for "Billo". Who else could work for a major corporation and sexually harass a female employee to the tune of over $10 million and keep his job!

Having worked for a mojor corporation and seeing behavior not even approaching anything "Billo" did, result in termination, it says volume about "FAUX" news and the lemmings who continually listen to this sexist pig!It also says volumes about the huge audience that tunes in everynight to watch him. I think his audience continues to grow and grow because Keith Oberman is so obsessed with Billo. Oberman's producers should recognize that he gives Billo free advertising everynight because he seems unable to get through his show without mentioning Billo. It has gone from comical to pathetic. Maybe that's why Oberman is now trying to be a football commentator.

[Guest]

It's just the same "usual suspects" that want President Obama and/or his policies to fail. Fortunately, you are in the minority!

These are just a few of the people that want him and America to succeed.

http://i293.photobucket.com/albums/mm63/chelsea24_photos/crowd.jpg

[Guest]

I too hope that certain planks of the Obama platform crack and break. No different than all those who hoped planks within the Bush platform crumbled
See right there in bold is the difference between you and I SteveZ. I never liked Bush, but I never wanted him to fail. I kept hoping he would succeed. That would help America. It's so sad that anyone in this great country would want their President to fail. :ohdear: Shame on you!
If you can't see the difference between platform planks and the person, there's no hope in understanding. As examples:

1. The Democratic Party and the Obama administration platforms are pro-abortion - I'm not, and I truly hope any attempt to expand that agenda fails.

2. The Democratic Party and the Obama administration platforms are pro-national health insurance funded by increased taxes (and who will end up paying them?) - I'm against the nationalization of any industry, as the service is always cheapened, and costs still go up due to the need for supplemental coverage. So, I hope any attempt to impose national health care upon us fails.

3. The Democratic Party and the Obama administration platforms are terrorist-coddlers in that they believe they can diplomatically cajole bullies - I'm don't agree and believe that attitude places us all at greater risk (That's what Spain, Japan, Indonesia, Colombia, Italy and others have learned the hard way), and I truly hope the policies of F.D. Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain in dealing with international bullies aren't replayed, because the subsequent damage can be as immense as WWiI. Yes, I hope that any attempt to butt-kiss the bullies stalls and never occurs.

4. The F.D.Roosevelt "New Deal" made a lot of money for select "captains of industry" and attempted to turn average Americans into serfs. I see the Democratic Party and the Obama Administration intentions to set up a 21th Century New Deal to do the same. This idea that "only government" can make things better is dictatorial, and reeks of arrogance not seen except in the most maniacal monarchies. Yes, I hope that plan crumbles before it can do harm.

If one was to review posts on this board going back a year or longer, one would find many instances when people condemned the plans and policies of the Republican Party and the Bush administration, hoping that 1) plans would never be activated and 2) policies would cease. What's the difference here?

I do not want to see America degenerate in a socialistic nation where individuality is replaced by a drone-like mentality where before anyone can think or do, they must first find out if it meets "fearless leader's" concept of life. And if it doesn't the individual learns what assimilation really is. I saw the worst of that socialistic concept in Vietnam with the re-education camps, and we're a stone's throw from that when we give up our freedoms for "only government can fix this." Once you start down that track, it's virtually impossible to stop this train.

Yep, shame on me for not joining the Democratic Party and the Obama administration' version of the Hitler-Jugend and accepting everything as being for my own good. You may see a political messiah who you want to follow as "fearless leader" who knows all and does everything right and is infallible. I see a charismatic socialist whom I hope the Democratic Party leadership - filled with self-serving millionaires who have a lot to lose personally - keeps in check. I am much more concerned about the United States continuing according to its Constitution than I am about the "success" of the Democratic Party and the Obama administration in establishing a socialistic state where"government" is master and the citizenry are the government's servants.

I'm no fan of President Kennedy, but his famous quote of "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" is timeless. Today's Democratic Party and the Obama administration have effectively perverted that quote, having the citizenry "Ask what your country can do for you, and your country will be the benevolent provider of your life's needs." Nope - when I ask "give us this day our daily bread," it's to a much higher authority.

[Guest]

Since I disagree with just about everything you said, there's obviously no dialogue here. But pleeaaaaaaaaseeeeeeee don't drag out a Hitler analogy. It's just so telling of your mindset. And why, just because President Obama has an 80 percent approval rating, does that mean it's a "drone-like" mentality? That statement is insulting to the American people.

So, if that's what makes you comfortable, just hang on to the old policies of the last eight years that got us where we are today. It's a new world out there and it's arriving at everyone's front door. Good Luck with that. ;)

[Guest]

Please read your history. SteveZ was not dragging out a Hitler analogy as you want to think, he names the Hitler-Jugend which was the Hitler youth movement that followed their new leader blindly without thought to his end state or agenda.

Many people on both sides are saying they "do not know this man" and what he stands for. Yet as the Hitler-Jugend followed him, they to are following Obama. Actually a good historical analogy. Their are several others but many of the others followed their leadership out of fear. In the 1930's Germany, they followed because this leader told them what they wanted to hear and promised fixing all the problems created by prior leadership during and after WWI.

It's more an analogy of the masses following any leader with blind faith.

[Guest]

Since I disagree with just about everything you said, there's obviously no dialogue here. But pleeaaaaaaaaseeeeeeee don't drag out a Hitler analogy. It's just so telling of your mindset. And why, just because President Obama has an 80 percent approval rating, does that mean it's a "drone-like" mentality? That statement is insulting to the American people.

So, if that's what makes you comfortable, just hang on to the old policies of the last eight years that got us where we are today. It's a new world out there and it's arriving at everyone's front door. Good Luck with that. ;)
President Obama has an approval rating today that is normal for an incoming President who hasn't done anything yet. Time will wear that down.

And yes, the blind adoration of a charismatic has a lot of historical precedents, and so far this time matches many of similar situations. Blind adoration and following is symptomatic of cult-like behavior.

There is no "holding on" of the last eight years, but rather most of the last 220 in trying to keep the US from emulating the USSR. If someday you get beyond your hatred of Pres. Bush, you may see that.

And whether you want to accept it or not, it is not a "new world out there," but the same dangerous one that has had most of this planet involved in some kind of warfare since homo sapiens threw his first rock. The flower-child mentality hasn't changed that. Somehow, I just don't see Mr. Putin, Mr. bin Laden, Mr. Ahmadinejad and others like them accepting a posey from someone and smiling happily into consolation.

If there is no dialogue, it is because of a lack of believe that one could be wrong. I accept the fact that I could be wrong, and want to learn as much as I can about why and how people believe what they do, in the hope of becoming less wrong about things. I actually hope to be proven wrong on how I see things, as I have been taught that education requires a willingness to accept facts not before known to modify an opinion, and humility starts with accepting that one does not always possess all of the facts. Arrogance is simply intellectual bullying or nastiness when facts become impediments to one's position.

When you open the front door to view that "new world," here's hoping it still allows free thought...

[Guest]

Please read your history. SteveZ was not dragging out a Hitler analogy as you want to think, he names the Hitler-Jugend which was the Hitler youth movement that followed their new leader blindly without thought to his end state or agenda.

Many people on both sides are saying they "do not know this man" and what he stands for. Yet as the Hitler-Jugend followed him, they to are following Obama. Actually a good historical analogy. Their are several others but many of the others followed their leadership out of fear. In the 1930's Germany, they followed because this leader told them what they wanted to hear and promised fixing all the problems created by prior leadership during and after WWI.

It's more an analogy of the masses following any leader with blind faith.

Sorry, I do know my history but I still think this goes back to fear-mongering and a bad analogy. This is name calling just wrapped in a cloak of faux patriotism. Why is it that some people cannot accept that others are NOT just blindly following President Obama. That they truly believe in his policies. That's what I find so insulting to the American people. Are you saying then that 80% of Americans are now just a flock of sheep? Are you saying that you, and the Conservatives, are the ONLY ones that have studied the issues? Give me a break!

The American public has voted. He's only been in office for three days for God's sake! Support your President. These are unprecedented times of crisis. Suck it up and pitch in and help.;)

[Guest]

Since I disagree with just about everything you said, there's obviously no dialogue here.

With that statement Chelsea, I think you've made l2's, SteveZ and others' points. There is no dialogue because you say so !!!! There is no discussion because you won't allow yourself to think of any other viewpoint but the One's !!! Facts and data be danged.

Good luck with that.

[Guest]

What specific things does Obama support that you support and hope he succeeds at changing or implementing?

Give us specific policies and regulations, don't just say "change" or "fixing the economy." Maybe include why or how you believe it will make the county better.


chelsea24. others, take a shot at it.

[Guest]

Since I disagree with just about everything you said, there's obviously no dialogue here.

With that statement Chelsea, I think you've made l2's, SteveZ and others' points. There is no dialogue because you say so !!!! There is no discussion because you won't allow yourself to think of any other viewpoint but the One's !!! Facts and data be danged.

Good luck with that.

What are the facts and data? He's only been in office for 3 days. OMG! :laugh:

[Guest]

Sorry, I do know my history but I still think this goes back to fear-mongering and a bad analogy. This is name calling just wrapped in a cloak of faux patriotism. Why is it that some people cannot accept that others are NOT just blindly following President Obama. That they truly believe in his policies. That's what I find so insulting to the American people. Are you saying then that 80% of Americans are now just a flock of sheep? Are you saying that you, and the Conservatives, are the ONLY ones that have studied the issues? Give me a break!

The American public has voted. He's only been in office for three days for God's sake! Support your President. These are unprecedented times of crisis. Suck it up and pitch in and help.;)

When the President has to deal with the world and place a singe American face to the international community, he will be supported. We are all one when in dealing with the rest of the international community. However, within this nation, he will be challenged - as all before him - to demonstrate the why and how - to the individuals, not the adoring herd, amongst us. Why should it be any different for Mr. Obama than the 43 presidents before him?

80% of Americans (that approval rating) bends with the wind, and will bend each time someone's personal ox is gored.

Yes, Mr. Obama has been elected - not coronated. He will have to expect performance reviews by the citizenry every day he is in office - just like the 43 before him - from everyone within the citizenty. Supporting the president is not necessarily agreeing with EVERYTHING he says or proposes. If you believe that blind obedience to party doctrine or administration policies is "supporting," that is your choice. I like to think for myself.

[Guest]

What are the facts and data? He's only been in office for 3 days. OMG! :laugh:
But he has been campaigning for 18 months or longer. He has indicated a socialist agenda and strong central government which abridges States' Rights and individual choice. That's what's on the table.

I can respect your believing in all his policies and goals - the question is, can you respect that others don't.

[Guest]

I honestly don't think most Obama supporters know what his objectives, policies, and goals are.

[Guest]

through this thread. My observations of what has been posted so far is that most people have given honest, thoughtful, ideas or opinions and then there are the few that will defend only those ideas that don't conflict with their classic left viewpoints. Freedom of speech, thought, ideas, actions, for the liberal left are reserved for them only. All others need not apply.

Historically, in spite of the dictionary meaning of the word liberal, liberal governments are the ones that want a strong central government that TELLS us whats best for us, instead of us taking care of ourselves. The liberals want to regulate every aspect of our lives because they feel that THEY are more capable of knowing what is good for us.

Conservative governments, in spite of what the word conservative says in the dictionary, want less government in our lives. A conservative government actually WANTS us to be more responsible for our lives. The conservatives aim is to deregulate our lives because we are capable of making our own decisions.

As a conservative, I feel that no one is saying that they want a failed government of either party. Conservatives simply want a government that has minimal intrusions into their lives and federal policies that defend us, not control us. Nazism, socialism, communism have all had strong central governments, governments that are liberal (controlling) of their people. Free peoples fear that type of government and are ever watchful for it.

[Guest]

But he has been campaigning for 18 months or longer. He has indicated a socialist agenda and strong central government which abridges States' Rights and individual choice. That's what's on the table.

I can respect your believing in all his policies and goals - the question is, can you respect that others don't.

I do respect other's opinions. But, not when they are peppered with words like "blind faith", "adoring herd" or coronation, it becomes not only ridiculous, but insulting.

If you want to use terms like that, you should have used them on Bush. Here was a man that wanted to be Emperor. Unfortunately for him, the citizens saw that he wasn't wearing any clothing.

[Guest]

through this thread. My observations of what has been posted so far is that most people have given honest, thoughtful, ideas or opinions and then there are the few that will defend only those ideas that don't conflict with their classic left viewpoints. Freedom of speech, thought, ideas, actions, for the liberal left are reserved for them only. All others need not apply.

Historically, in spite of the dictionary meaning of the word liberal, liberal governments are the ones that want a strong central government that TELLS us whats best for us, instead of us taking care of ourselves. The liberals want to regulate every aspect of our lives because they feel that THEY are more capable of knowing what is good for us.

Conservative governments, in spite of what the word conservative says in the dictionary, want less government in our lives. A conservative government actually WANTS us to be more responsible for our lives. The conservatives aim is to deregulate our lives because we are capable of making our own decisions.

As a conservative, I feel that no one is saying that they want a failed government of either party. Conservatives simply want a government that has minimal intrusions into their lives and federal policies that defend us, not control us. Nazism, socialism, communism have all had strong central governments, governments that are liberal (controlling) of their people. Free peoples fear that type of government and are ever watchful for it.

Conservatives want less government until some disaster hit's their own home. Then the "it's all about me" mentality comes out. :ohdear:

[Guest]

I do respect other's opinions. But, not when they are peppered with words like "blind faith", "adoring herd" or coronation, it becomes not only ridiculous, but insulting.

If you want to use terms like that, you should have used them on Bush. Here was a man that wanted to be Emperor. Unfortunately for him, the citizens saw that he wasn't wearing any clothing.
Conservatives want less government until some disaster hit's their own home. Then the "it's all about me" mentality comes out.
Chels, The terminology you used to describe Pres. Bush and those around him was brutal. That apparently was okay. "Insulting" must be interpretive by "I like" or "I don't like."

Yes, conservatives, and progressive neanderthals, prefer less government at ALL times. We don't need "government" to take over our personal responsibilities so we don't have to be responsible for anything. We can think for ourselves and don't need "daddy" or "mommy" overseeing our lives and telling us what's good for us.

When the socialism gets to a point that it tells you how long you can live, and when compulsory end-of-life shall be, maybe then the leftists might actually believe that government is finally too big - maybe...

Your "it's all about me" comment, I really don't understand.

[Guest]

I occurs to me SteveZ, that if you and I have this much trouble agreeing on anything, just imagine what goes on in the Senate and Congress! Wow, and we don't have the weight of the world on our shoulders. Personally, I'm wishing everyone good luck at this point.

Quite frankly, I think both of us are taking this to the extreme. I'm betting all is more moderate than is being foretold.

I'm not a blind sheep, but I am an optimist and all I was asking for was to give our (yours too) President more than 3 days to see what plays out. Again, this is an unprecedented crisis and more than any other President, he needs our support. It was not my intention to regurgitate the election, the votes have been cast.;)

[Guest]

Obama has made it pretty clear what he intends to do.

I think that's really the main thing dividing our country. Conservatives are generally more self-sufficient, self-reliant and take more personal responsibility for their current circumstances and future promise. The left tends to relay more on the government and solutions provided by others for their future outcomes and general well being.

Much as the very debate is here, some of us want the government out of the way and let the people get this country moving yet others see the government as the only way out and the only solution to our problems.

It seems to me over the years there are more and more people with their hands out looking for entitlements.

Obama plays into that sentiment very well. The government can be all things to all people and apparently that's what at least 1/2 our county wants.

The next 4 - 8 years will be a battle for our soul and I have no doubt our founding fathers are turning over in their graves.

[Guest]

I occurs to me SteveZ, that if you and I have this much trouble agreeing on anything, just imagine what goes on in the Senate and Congress! Wow, and we don't have the weight of the world on our shoulders. Personally, I'm wishing everyone good luck at this point.

Quite frankly, I think both of us are taking this to the extreme. I'm betting all is more moderate that is being foretold.

I'm not a blind sheep, but I am an optimist and all I was asking for was to give our (yours too) President more than 3 days to see what plays out. Again, this is an unprecedented crisis and more than any other President, he needs our support. It was not my intention to regurgitate the election, the votes have been cast.;)
For some reason, I'm reminded of a classic scene in Men in Black, where Will Smith has just fired his weapon at the dangerous alien, gets chastised by Tommy Lee Jones for the shooting, responds with a comment about an alien spaceship ready to destroy Earth. Tommy Lee Jones replies with, "There's always an Arquillian Battle Cruiser, or a Corillian Death Ray, or an intergalactic plague that is about to wipe out all life on this miserable little planet, and the only way these people can get on with their happy lives is that they Do... Not... Know about it!"

This economic crisis is "just another crisis" that occurs during a nation's history. I can think of many with significant impact that the public knows about: 9/11, Cuban Missile, Dot.Com crash, Lockerbie, Vietnam, Gulf I and Gulf II are a few. Also, there have been others which didn't get public exposure, for good reason.

All presidents need support, but they don't need 300 million yes-men agreeing to everything. All plans and ideas need to be subjected to hard scrutiny, because if they can't hold their own to the scrutiny, they may not be so hot after all. The concept of "loyal opposition" as devil's advocate is a proven one which has great merit in a free society.

Thank heaven we are free to debate - many others don't have that right to share ideas and opinions, but must march to a single drummer.

We have it made!

[Guest]

I know I am. I sure don't want any more government dictating what I do every day. Or providing for me when I don't need it. I do believe that we've gotten our government expenditures and those to whom services are provided a little out of whack. There are many examples, but to have the government provide subsidized healthcare to those who can afford to pay for it, while 50 million Americans don't have health insurance calls out for correction.

But the major differences that we've been talking about here and in other threads are the government's reaction to the slumping economy. Some believe that it's just another recession and will work itself out with little more than a few tax cuts. That's worked before, it should work again.

I believe our situation is far more critical than that. I don't believe that tax cuts, regardless of how big and to whom, will result in increased demand, more production and more jobs -- the economic recovery we all seek. In fact, if were up to me alone I wouldn't enact any tax cuts right now. It's not that I never would -- it's just that economic circumstances are so dire that I don't think the few extra bucks people would get would cause them to spend in the way needed to begin to re-energize the economy. For that matter, I probably wouldn't spend very much money on "shovel ready" infrastructure projects right now either. Again, maybe sometime in the future, but not right now -- it would simply take too long to have much of an effect on the spending-demand-production-jobs cycle. (I might say that for political reasons, neither of the things I would avoid will be avoided -- Congress will do both for political reasons, whether I like it or not.)

What I WOULD do is pump every available dollar into fixing the U.S. banking system. It is broken and cannot or will not fix itself without massive government intervention. The leverage provided by loans is the grease that makes our economy grow, so with no source of credit because of the broken banks, our economy might take decades to recover. The only way banks can "fix themselves" is to increase their capital. The only way they can do that is by selling equity, such as in common stock, or retaining earnings into capital accounts. Right now, there is no demand whatsoever for the stocks of banks and there are no earnings from which to retain for capital-strengthening purposes. The problem with this alternative is that it's going to cost more money than we can possibly imagine right now -- a lot more than the "stimulus bill" that President Obama is pressuring Congress to pass.

There are probably lots of ways to fix the banks' capital adequacy problems -- have the government buy all the bad loans, inject equity into the banks (as has been done so far), or even form a new "government national bank" to make loans and compete with the privately-owned banks. I don't know the answer, but I know that getting all the bad loans off the bank's books is what will be needed to get the economy going again. And I also know that such a fix will create so much national debt that many generations of Americans will have to work very hard to repay it.

Do I like this idea? Heck No! But this conservative-minded ex-banker sees no other way that will work to get our economy growing again anytime soon. When I say "anytime soon", I mean that even with massive government intervention the economy is not likely to recover before sometime in 2010. Without gobs of government money -- your money and mine -- recovery to economic activity as we have known it in recent years might take a decade or more. That means a real change in lifestyle for all of us. And anyone who knows the definitions would describe such government intervention as "nationalizing" or "socializing" important parts of our economy. That's what it is, like it or not.

I might add that whatever contrary opinions that are held by posters here, the economists, bankers, and financial experts of both conservative and liberal leanings seem to agree that the old ways of reacting to a recession cannot work this time. The financial crisis is simply too overwhelming.

So, we really don't have differences of opinion as "conservatives" or "liberals" or even "socialists". We all should have learned by now that "Republican" doesn't mean "conservative" any more than "Democrat" means "liberal" or "socialist". Our only difference of opinion is how bad the economic problem is that we're facing and what alternatives are available to fix it. Once we begin citing one fix or another, it's only then that people start assigning idealogical tags to the alternatives -- and those that propose them.

[Guest]

I know I am. I sure don't want any more government dictating what I do every day. Or providing for me when I don't need it. I do believe that we've gotten our government expenditures and those to whom services are provided a little out of whack. There are many examples, but to have the government provide subsidized healthcare to those who can afford to pay for it, while 50 million Americans don't have health insurance calls out for correction.

But the major differences that we've been talking about here and in other threads are the government's reaction to the slumping economy. Some believe that it's just another recession and will work itself out with little more than a few tax cuts. That's worked before, it should work again.

I believe our situation is far more critical than that. I don't believe that tax cuts, regardless of how big and to whom, will result in increased demand, more production and more jobs -- the economic recovery we all seek. In fact, if were up to me alone I wouldn't enact any tax cuts right now. It's not that I never would -- it's just that economic circumstances are so dire that I don't think the few extra bucks people would get would cause them to spend in the way needed to begin to re-energize the economy. For that matter, I probably wouldn't spend very much money on "shovel ready" infrastructure projects right now either. Again, maybe sometime in the future, but not right now -- it would simply take too long to have much of an effect on the spending-demand-production-jobs cycle. (I might say that for political reasons, neither of the things I would avoid will be avoided -- Congress will do both for political reasons, whether I like it or not.)

What I WOULD do is pump every available dollar into fixing the U.S. banking system. It is broken and cannot or will not fix itself without massive government intervention. The leverage provided by loans is the grease that makes our economy grow, so with no source of credit because of the broken banks, our economy might take decades to recover. The only way banks can "fix themselves" is to increase their capital. The only way they can do that is by selling equity, such as in common stock, or retaining earnings into capital accounts. Right now, there is no demand whatsoever for the stocks of banks and there are no earnings from which to retain for capital-strengthening purposes. The problem with tbis alternative is that it's going to cost more money than we can possibly imagine right now -- a lot more than the "stimulus bill" that President Obama is pressuring Congress to pass.

There are probably lots of ways to fix the banks' capital adequacy problems -- have the government buy all the bad loans, inject equity into the banks (as has been done so far), or even form a new "government national bank" to make loans and compete with the privately-owned banks. I don't know the answer, but I know thaqt getting all the bad loans off the bank's books is what will be needed to get the economy going again. And I also know that such a fix will create so much national debt that many generations of Americans will have to work very hard to repay it.

Do I like this idea? Heck No! But this conservative-minded ex-banker sees no other way that will work to get our economy growing again anytime soon. When I say "anytime soon", I mean that even with massive government intervention the economy is not likely to recover before sometime in 2010. Without gobs of government money -- your money and mine -- recovery to economic activity as we have known it in recent years might take a decade or more. That means a rreal change in lifestyle for all of us. And anyone who knows the definitions would describe such government intervention as "nationalizing" or "socializing" important parts of our economy. That's what it is, like it or not.

I might add that whatever counter opinions that are held by posters here, the economists, bankers, and financial experts of both conservative and liberal leanings seem to agree that the old ways of reacting to a recession cannot work this time. The financial crisis is simply too overwhelming.

So, we really don't have differences of opinion as "conservatives" or "liberals" or even "socialists". Our only difference of opinion is how bad the economic problem is that we're facing and what alternatives are available to fix it. Once we begin citing one fix or another, it's only then that people start assigning idealogical tags to the alternatives -- and those that propose them.


First of all I dont believe for one minute VK that you are a conservative, but you can say whatever you want and I am forced to accept your words.

Second, as I said many times...I am no economic guru as you purport to be, but explain to me how GIVING MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of dollars away is doing one thing for us.

First I read how Barney Frank helped a black bank in MA get money...why...because they were black...he made sure they shared in the funds and was and is pusing for more TARP for these folks. I might add they are infamous for the high salaries.

Second, I hear one of the President's gurus say he cannot assure EVEN ONE JOB WOULD BE CREATED BY GIVING OUT MONEY.

What is the point ?

[Guest]

I know I am. I sure don't want any more government dictating what I do every day. Or providing for me when I don't need it. I do believe that we've gotten our government expenditures and those to whom services are provided a little out of whack. There are many examples, but to have the government provide subsidized healthcare to those who can afford to pay for it, while 50 million Americans don't have health insurance calls out for correction.

But the major differences that we've been talking about here and in other threads are the government's reaction to the slumping economy. Some believe that it's just another recession and will work itself out with little more than a few tax cuts. That's worked before, it should work again.

I believe our situation is far more critical than that. I don't believe that tax cuts, regardless of how big and to whom, will result in increased demand, more production and more jobs -- the economic recovery we all seek. In fact, if were up to me alone I wouldn't enact any tax cuts right now. It's not that I never would -- it's just that economic circumstances are so dire that I don't think the few extra bucks people would get would cause them to spend in the way needed to begin to re-energize the economy. For that matter, I probably wouldn't spend very much money on "shovel ready" infrastructure projects right now either. Again, maybe sometime in the future, but not right now -- it would simply take too long to have much of an effect on the spending-demand-production-jobs cycle. (I might say that for political reasons, neither of the things I would avoid will be avoided -- Congress will do both for political reasons, whether I like it or not.)

What I WOULD do is pump every available dollar into fixing the U.S. banking system. It is broken and cannot or will not fix itself without massive government intervention. The leverage provided by loans is the grease that makes our economy grow, so with no source of credit because of the broken banks, our economy might take decades to recover. The only way banks can "fix themselves" is to increase their capital. The only way they can do that is by selling equity, such as in common stock, or retaining earnings into capital accounts. Right now, there is no demand whatsoever for the stocks of banks and there are no earnings from which to retain for capital-strengthening purposes. The problem with tbis alternative is that it's going to cost more money than we can possibly imagine right now -- a lot more than the "stimulus bill" that President Obama is pressuring Congress to pass.

There are probably lots of ways to fix the banks' capital adequacy problems -- have the government buy all the bad loans, inject equity into the banks (as has been done so far), or even form a new "government national bank" to make loans and compete with the privately-owned banks. I don't know the answer, but I know thaqt getting all the bad loans off the bank's books is what will be needed to get the economy going again. And I also know that such a fix will create so much national debt that many generations of Americans will have to work very hard to repay it.

Do I like this idea? Heck No! But this conservative-minded ex-banker sees no other way that will work to get our economy growing again anytime soon. When I say "anytime soon", I mean that even with massive government intervention the economy is not likely to recover before sometime in 2010. Without gobs of government money -- your money and mine -- recovery to economic activity as we have known it in recent years might take a decade or more. That means a rreal change in lifestyle for all of us. And anyone who knows the definitions would describe such government intervention as "nationalizing" or "socializing" important parts of our economy. That's what it is, like it or not.

I might add that whatever counter opinions that are held by posters here, the economists, bankers, and financial experts of both conservative and liberal leanings seem to agree that the old ways of reacting to a recession cannot work this time. The financial crisis is simply too overwhelming.

So, we really don't have differences of opinion as "conservatives" or "liberals" or even "socialists". Our only difference of opinion is how bad the economic problem is that we're facing and what alternatives are available to fix it. Once we begin citing one fix or another, it's only then that people start assigning idealogical tags to the alternatives -- and those that propose them.

Banks are no different than any other business. Some succeed. Some fail. Some make a profit. Some Ponzi themselves into ruin. Some are very well managed. Some bank managers shouldn't be allowed to run a lemonade stand.

Gobs of money in the hands of managers proven to be inept or greedy is wasted money.

Successful economies require money to remain in the society and cycle several times. Removing money from the "cycle" via foreign purchases results in no economy.

Sure, there are billions in bad loans out there - and those holding the bad paper have lost their investment. Period.

Let's be very blunt. There are no people in government service who have graduated with economics degrees from Hogwarts, and no magic potions on their desks and no magic wands stuck in the belts. In other words, there are no people in government service who have the expertise to fix what the greed of others have broken. Mega-BIllions dispensed by well-meaning amateurs is scarier yet, as the potential for exploitation is immense.

So, in the end, the marketplace has to fix itself because there are no magicians in government to put Humpty Dumpty back together. That means some banks will go belly-up and be gobbled up by the remaining healthy sharks.

These lousy bankers who screwed up are no different than the thousands who go to Las Vegas, Biloxi, Atlantic City and similar spots, blow it all on a bad spin or "lousy cards" and end up broke. Shall we recoup their losses as well? Gambling is gambling, whether it is called "investing" or other sanitized term. Businesses succeed and fail, as all businesses operate on levels of assumed risks. Banks are no different.

The marketplace will correct the banking system. Government bailout only means that banker executives will be paid per their contracts, bonuses despite bad business decisions will be paid, and the folks at the top of the banking pyramid - the ones who direct the payment of campaign funds and hire K Street lobbyists to protect their interests - can breathe easier and still order their new Mercedes SLR McLaren.

Impatience breeds mistakes, especially when it comes to dispensing money with little information. Worse, impatience makes a select few richer at the expense of the frightened.

Even in the worst of times, someone turns a profit (Ferengi Rule of Acquisition # 161) I wonder who those folk are in this mess?

[Guest]

How can a buffoon like Rush Limbaugh make statements like this and even call himself an American? It's attitudes like this that have so fractured our political system that it has frozen and has totally failed to serve the people. Hopefully most people will react to statement's like this in the same way that Limbaugh's own staff did when he said the words on the radio -- they laughed. But hopefully people will also react with disgust with Limbaugh's distasteful and stupid foolishness.


....and the democratic buffoons who attacked Bush from day one get a pass from you....is it only Conservative Republicans that have bad attitudes?

What do you think of your Democratic cronies, Pelosi, Reid, et al who are pushing to crush Conservative dissent with that little Stalinist gem called the "fairness doctrine" that would virtually take conservative talk radio off the air? Its coming....sooner then later. The partisan tone of your post suggests you would support it.

How does that serve the people?

I love the libs....freedom of speech for them...but, crush distasteful and stupid foolishness...if its coming from the right.


I have respectfully read most of your posts over a long period of time. While I don't agree with much of your political tilt to the left, I have occasionally enjoyed exchanging missiles.

You said, "I'm really surprised that some of you really endorse Limbaugh's outrageous hope for President Obama, and by inference our country."

That "by inference our country" remark you made, is nothing short of cheap, inflammatory fighting words. I know many posters who have served this country when others were heading for Canada. Don't preach to me or them about who supports our country and who doesn't. Your thoughtless provocative linkage from Limbaugh's opinion saying those that support Limbaugh somehow do not support our country is the worst attack I have seen on this board. Yes, I do take it personally.

[Guest]

Rush Limbaugh's a disloyal clown when he says he hopes Obama fails

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008664366_opina25pitts.html

[Guest]

Rush Limbaugh's a disloyal clown when he says he hopes Obama fails

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008664366_opina25pitts.html



This article referenced above was written by Leonard Pitts......the link below is an article he wrote this week on President Bush.....oh, this is the last sentence of that article...

"Godspeed, then, Mr. Bush. Good health and long life. I hope you live to hear history itself tell you what an awful president you were."

http://www.freep.com/article/20090117/OPINION03/901170303

Not much bias huh ?

[Guest]

This article referenced above was written by Leonard Pitts......the link below is an article he wrote this week on President Bush.....oh, this is the last sentence of that article...

"Godspeed, then, Mr. Bush. Good health and long life. I hope you live to hear history itself tell you what an awful president you were."

http://www.freep.com/article/20090117/OPINION03/901170303

Not much bias huh ?

As Stephen Colbert said: “Reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

[Guest]

VK,

I am quite certain you don't need my or anyone elses help, but the stuff being thrown your way, both overt and wrapped in a cloak of semantics, sarcasm and demegoguery is frankly becoming distasteful. While I may not agree with everything you say you do consistently bring well articulated and well informed opinions into the forum, and have done so without resorting to insults or personal attacks. Kudos to you for having the courage and intelligence to bring meaningful discussion to the table,and I for one like the fact that you (and others) have profoundly challenged some of my thought processes. Thanks for your efforts.:coolsmiley:

[Guest]

Some say they don't do personal attacks and then do. There are some people that have been unhappy people every since I have been in this forum. They live to stir the pot. VK - I agree with you and think your posts are usually well thought out and meant to provide discussion instead of all this nonsense.

[Guest]

Rush Limbaugh's a disloyal clown when he says he hopes Obama fails

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2008664366_opina25pitts.html

Kayaker, go read what Rush actually said, not what some media pundit said he said and his interpretation of it. He did not say he hopes Obama fails. He said he hopes his socialist policies fail. I hope they do also. I want Obama to succeed, but not his leftest ideas. Big difference.

[Guest]

And this is all I have to say on the matter. You can agree to disagree, but the rest of this is drivel.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTU5MjE3MmQ0NWU1Zjc1YzYyMDE1NzNmZmM2MzYxMmI=

[Guest]

And this is all I have to say on the matter. You can agree to disagree, but the rest of this is drivel.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTU5MjE3MmQ0NWU1Zjc1YzYyMDE1NzNmZmM2MzYxMmI=


Thanks for a great link Tall !!!

I was glad to see the mention of Sal Alinsky in the link....I have been preaching all through the primary and the election how President Obama is following to the letter his teachings.

Just as an aside, someone was on here talking about his 80% approval ratings...now at 68

[Guest]

Rush is right...again.

[Guest]

Rush=Buffoon

[Guest]

Rush=Buffoon
Your comment = ignorance.

[Guest]

Republican from Ohio, John Boehner made my point exactly on Meet the Press this morning. He said emphatically that he does NOT want President Obama to fail because he does NOT want America to fail.

He may disagree with him on parts of the Stimulus Package, but he stated a couple of times that he does, indeed, want President Obama to succeed in every way.

That was my point.

Rush Limbaugh is not even worth air time. Just my opinion. He's become a joke and a bad one at that. :yuck:

[Guest]

Republican from Ohio, John Boehner made my point exactly on Meet the Press this morning. He said emphatically that he does NOT want President Obama to fail because he does NOT want America to fail.

He may disagree with him on parts of the Stimulus Package, but he stated a couple of times that he does, indeed, want President Obama to succeed in every way.

That was my point.

Rush Limbaugh is not even worth air time. Just my opinion. He's become a joke and a bad one at that. :yuck:
You were not listening. Boehner made exactly Rush's point in that he does not want Obama to fail ergo America to fail. However, Boehner wants Obama's POLICIES (the road we're headed down) to fail. Boehner was not as articulate as Rush, but the intent is there.

Write Boehner a letter and see if he doesn't confirm what I have said. And remember, Boehner will have to spray the flower because he IS afterall a politician as well.

[Guest]

Thanks for the clarification, TallerTree. I didn't see the show, but couldn't imagine that Boehner, of all people, would be for socialism.

[Guest]

Republican from Ohio, John Boehner made my point exactly on Meet the Press this morning. He said emphatically that he does NOT want President Obama to fail because he does NOT want America to fail.

He may disagree with him on parts of the Stimulus Package, but he stated a couple of times that he does, indeed, want President Obama to succeed in every way.

That was my point.

Rush Limbaugh is not even worth air time. Just my opinion. He's become a joke and a bad one at that. :yuck:


Ok...May the clock at Lake Sumter Landing ring out.....I am going to "SORT OF" agree with Chelsea on this. Here is the direct transcript from the show...

Keep in mind that they are SPECIFICALLY talking about the current discussion of bail outs...

BOEHNER: "Listen, we, we’ve made it clear we want to work with the new president. He’s made clear he wants to work with us. That’s why we laid out our ideas at his invitation the other day. And we want to continue to work with him to help fix this economy.

David, this isn’t about Democrat or Republican at this point. We have some serious problems in our economy. And believe me, all of us want the president to succeed. We want this plan to work. Now, there’s no real daylight between the president and Republicans on the Hill. There may be some disagreement over how much spending or how much in the way of tax relief.

But, at the end of the day, we want him to succeed because America needs him to succeed."

He DID say it....in speaking of this subject. I do not believe that Limbaugh was talking about such a narrow subject area in his comments. He was speaking of the general socialist programs.

Secondly...yes I "SORT OF" agree with Chelsea as I am NOT a fan of Limbaugh..dont listen to him but he is in the same catagory as Maher, Maddow and Olberman on the left. They have an agenda and they push it to the extreme. On this particular thread I think that VK stretched his allegiance to the new President just a bit. I am certainly opposed to the socialist agenda we are going to embark on for the next few years, and opposed President Obama's election for that reason, but not going to and did not during the campaign start a thread based on ANY of the aformentioned folks and what they say !

Ok..."sort of" is the best you get.....you stretched the facts a tad with context and the "every way" comment which HE NEVER SAID, and had to go after Limbaugh personally, but in general I will agree!

[Guest]

First: Bucco: Show me one time that Rush Limbaugh was wrong about anything liberal. Rush is not a Republican shill. Thankfully, he thinks for himself and is one of the most well versed, intelligent men out there. He is not a dolt.

Secondly: DK asked a question on page as follows:

What specific things does Obama support that you support and hope he succeeds at changing or implementing?

Give us specific policies and regulations, don't just say "change" or "fixing the economy." Maybe include why or how you believe it will make the county better.

And, I have noted that NOT ONE of you has had the courage to answer at all. And keep in mind, I believe DK is looking for a real well reasoned answer and not the garbage spewing that has been coming his way.

[Guest]

First: Bucco: Show me one time that Rush Limbaugh was wrong about anything liberal. Rush is not a Republican shill. Thankfully, he thinks for himself and is one of the most well versed, intelligent men out there. He is not a dolt.

Secondly: DK asked a question on page as follows:

What specific things does Obama support that you support and hope he succeeds at changing or implementing?

Give us specific policies and regulations, don't just say "change" or "fixing the economy." Maybe include why or how you believe it will make the county better.

And, I have noted that NOT ONE of you has had the courage to answer at all. And keep in mind, I believe DK is looking for a real well reasoned answer and not the garbage spewing that has been coming his way.


Hold on here......I was just about the most prolific opponent of President Obama during the primary and the general election thus your question aimed at me is sort of strange !

I support NOTHING socialist...the conversation was about what Sen Beuhner said or did not say. While I am about the most anti socialist guy you could ever meet, he did say he wanted the President to succeed, albeit only speaking of the narrow terms of the bailout being discussed at present. I simply felt that it should be pointed out that he did say what Chelsea purported although she left out the context !

As far as Rush Limbaugh is concerned.....I am sorry...I dont listen to him so I dont know if he has been right 100% of the time or 20% of the time and RIGHT in this context is all relative as it is with the liberal shills. I dont listen to any of them and make up my own mind by my own reading and listening to both sides.

If you only knew how silly it is to try and put me on the spot about President Obama....if you read these boards at all during the election, I was called many many names because of my total lack of support for him !

By the way...if you oppose President Obama this much I sure could have used your support on this board during the campaign :)

[Guest]

I didn't expect anyone would really answer. I've yet to find a person who voted for Obama who could answer.

The only answer I ever get is "change" or because I didn't like Bush.

[Guest]

I didn't expect anyone would really answer. I've yet to find a person who voted for Obama who could answer.

The only answer I ever get is "change" or because I didn't like Bush.

I've stayed out of re-debating the election, DK. It's over and there is a pretty clear winner. And unfortunately -- for all of us -- a lot of what was debated in the campaign is now moot, particularly anything having to do with the economy or fiscal policy. All that changed about two weeks before the election when several big banks went bust.

But, addressing other issues where Obama and McCain had differences, here are a couple where I thought Obama had a better idea...
Both candidates had some ideas regarding providing healthcare insurance for the 50 million or so Americans who are living without it. Obama's plan would provide coverage for all of them; McCain's plan as I recall would have left a substantial number uncovered. I simply can't accept that a country as developed and advanced as the U.S.A. should have almost 20% of it's population suffering by being deprived of adequate health care.
Obama's healthcare plan would provide the negotiating weight of the U.S. government to hold down the prices of healthcare and prescription drugs; McCain's specifically would not do that. I took the example of the Veteran's Administration, which does negotiate prices for their drug formulary provided to veterans. It's well-known that veterans covered by VA pay close to 50% less for their drugs than do those covered by Medicare Part D. I liked the idea of leveling the playing field between the people and the big drug companies and their lobbyists.
I definitely believe that the U.S. involvement in Iraq has gone on long enough. So obviously I was for Obama, who proposed an immediate withdrawal rather than McCain, who was willing to extend our presence in Iraq indefinitely.
I preferred Obama's tax reduction proposals to McCain's. As the election grew closer and the economy showed even more signs of weakening, I liked Obama's plan even better. His plan would cut the taxes of lower income taxpayers who would probably spend the tax savings thereby stimulating the lagging economy. McCain's tax reductions had a decided tilt towards more tax reductions for the wealthy, who have proven to use their savings more for investment and savings, with only a small portion being spent with the effect of stimulating the economy. I also agreed with Obama's proposal to return the tax rates for the top 5% of Americans to the levels which existed at the end of the Reagan administration.
And as important as any other issue, I finally succumbed to the idea of having the President and the Congress from the same party. We have experienced almost two decades of inaction by the Congress, as they carped and argued back and forth for purely political purposes, as the control of the Whitge House and the Congress flip-flopped back and forth between the parties.. If McCain had been elected, particularly with his admitted "maverick" attitude, I foresaw yet another four years of polarized and fractionalized inactivity by the Congress. We have too many problems facing the country to be able to afford more of the same. There would have been no way that McCain could have gotten very much from his agenda passed by what was going to be a Democratic House and Senate. I would normally prefer the White House and the Congress being controlled by different political parties, but I was willing to "try a different way" for the next four years.
I had no confidence whatsoever in John McCain's knowledge or ability to provide leadership on economic matters. He admitted that knowledge of economic issues was his weak point. While people were being critical of Obama's youth and inexperience, he was seeking the counsel of a group of experienced and respected economic advisors, developing his campaign platform and saying that his economic team would be chosen from among them. As I recall, John McCain never gave any indication of who he might choose as his key economic team, even with his admitted lack of knowledge in that area. Now, a few months later, I am doubly glad that I voted the way I did on the economic issue.
Lastly, I was turned off by the negative campaigning carried on my McCain's political advisors. At the outset, I admired and even favored McCain because of his experience and personality and willingness to speak his own mind. As the campaign proceeded, I was disappointed to see a man I admired sell out to his campaign advisors. The John McCain I so admired was the one who made such an uplifting concession speech, not the one who was negatively campaigning and touting the ridiculous Joe The Plumber.

And by the way, I did anticipate change if Obama was elected, and I definitely believed that President Bush had done a simply awful job of leading the country in almost every area and on every issue except for the war on terror. But my vote was based on a lot more thoughtful consideration than just "change" and "dislike".

For the record, my vote for President Obama was only the second time in my life that I voted for other than the Republican candidate. The first time was when I grudgingly voted for John Kerry as a "lesser of two evils" choice, after George Bush had completely abandoned his campaign promises from the first term. Remember, "compassionate conservative" and "we'll bring people together"?

[Guest]

I've stayed out of re-debating the election, DK. It's over and there is a pretty clear winner. And unfortunately -- for all of us -- a lot of what was debated in the campaign is now moot, particularly anything having to do with the economy or fiscal policy. All that changed about two weeks before the election when several big banks went bust.

But, addressing other issues where Obama and McCain had differences, here are a couple where I thought Obama had a better idea...
Both candidates had some ideas regarding providing healthcare insurance for the 50 million or so Americans who are living without it. Obama's plan would provide coverage for all of them; McCain's plan as I recall would have left a substantial number uncovered. I simply can't accept that a country as developed and advanced as the U.S.A. should have almost 20% of it's population suffering be being deprived of adequate health care.
Obama's healthcare plan would provide the negotiating weight of the U.S. government to hold down the prices of healthcare and prescription drugs; McCain's specifically would not do that. I took the example of the Veteran's Administration, which does negotiate prices for their drug formulary provided to veterans. It's well-known that veterans covered by VA pay close to 50% less for their drugs than do those covered by Medicare Part D. I liked the idea of leveling the playing field between the people and the big drug companies and their lobbyists.
I definitely believe that the U.S. involvement in Iraq has gone on long enough. So obviously I was for Obama, who proposed an immediate withdrawal rather than McCain, who was willing to extend our presence in Iraq indefinitely.
I preferred Obama's tax reduction proposals to McCain's. As the election grew closer and the economy showed even more signs of weakening, I liked Obama's plan even better. His plan would cut the taxes of lower income taxpayers who would probably spend the tax savings thereby stimulating the lagging economy. McCain's tax reductions had a decided tilt towards more tax reductions for the wealthy, who have proven to use their savings more for investment and savings, with only a small portion being spent with the effect of stimulating the economy. I also agreed with Obama's proposal to return the tax rates for the top 5% of Americans to the levels which existed at the end of the Reagan administration.
And as important as any other issue, I favored the idea of having the President and the Congress from the same party. We have experienced almost two decades of inaction by the Congress, as they carped and argued back and forth for purely political purposes. If McCain had been elected, particularly with his admitted "maverick" attitude, I foresaw yet another four years of polarized and fractionalized inactivity by the Congress. We have too many problems facing the country to be able to afford more of the same. I would normally prefer the White House and the Congress being controlled by different political parties, but I was willing to "try a different way" foir the next four years.
I had no confidence whatsoever in John McCain's knowledge or ability to provide leadership on economic matters. He admitted that knowledge of economic issues was his weak point. While people were being critical of Obama's youth and inexperience, he was meeting with a group of experienced and respected economic advisors, saying that his economic team would be chosen from among them. As I recall, John McCain never gave any indication of who he might choose as his key economic team, even with his admitted lack of knowledge in that area. Now, a few months later, I am doubly glad that I voted the way I did on the economic issue.
Lastly, I was turned off by the negative campaigning carried on my McCain's political advisors. At the outset, I admired and even favored McCain because of his experience and personality and willingness to speak his own mind. As the campaign proceeded, I was disappointed to see a man I admired sell out to his campaign advisors. The John McCain I so admired was the one who made such an uplifting concession speech, not the one who was negatively campaigning and touting the ridiculous Joe The Plumber.

And by the way, I did anticipate change if Obama was elected, and I definitely believed that President Bush had done a simply awful job of leading the country in almost every area and on every issue except for the war on terror. But my vote was based on a lot more thoughtful consideration than just "change" and "dislike".

For the record, my vote for President Obama was only the second time in my life that I voted for other than the Republican candidate. The first time was when I grudgingly voted for John Kerry as a "lesser of two evils" choice, after George Bush had completely abandoned his campaign promises from the first term. Remember, "compassionate conservative" and "we'll bring people together"?


I feel compelled to post a comment at this point.

VK, I TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY agree with you that there is no sense in rehashing the campaign. You started a thread on Alinsky and I got drawn in there but this thread was begun by you because you were offended by a right wing broadcaster's statements and that is fine. THAT was the discussion and should remain the discussion.

President of the United States is Barrack Obama. I have posted my fears and concerns for months on here and will continue to criticize him if I feel it is warranted, but I will NOT post quotes from either right or left wing zealots that do it for entertainment value, nor do I want to rehash the election.

The only caveat I will throw in is that I will reserve the right to mention "I told you so" :)

I

[Guest]

I didn't expect anyone would really answer. I've yet to find a person who voted for Obama who could answer.

The only answer I ever get is "change" or because I didn't like Bush.

Seems like those two answers were enough for the majority of voters.:beer3:

[Guest]

Seems like those two answers were enough for the majority of voters.:beer3:

"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." :shrug:


H. L. Mencken :rant-rave: