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.

Originally Posted by chelsea24

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by chelsea24

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.

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!

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.

Originally Posted by TallerTrees

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

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.

Originally Posted by dklassen

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"?

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

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

Originally Posted by dklassen

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.

Originally Posted by KayakerNC

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

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


H. L. Mencken