The Note, 1/26/09: The Big Sale — Obama Searches for GOP Support
Email By RICK KLEIN Will Gov. Rod Blagojevich, D-Ill., still be in office by the time we get a new nominee for Commerce Secretary? (By the time we have a second senator from Minnesota?) (How close were we really to Senator Oprah?) Would Gov. David Paterson, D-N.Y., have been better off trying to pull a Blagojevich with the Senate seat? (What — were there no Roosevelts or Rockefellers available to upset, too?) Would Team Obama rather win 50 Republicans or lose 50 Democrats on the stimulus vote? (Is it possible to do both?) What does “bipartisanship” mean? (Is it people from two distinct political parties actually casting votes on the same side of a matter of big national significance?) (What would that make “postpartisan,” then?) Of all the balancing involved in the stimulus bill — spending vs. taxes, impact now vs. impact later, way too much vs. not nearly enough — the one that matters most to President Obama is that old one we’re all used to: Democrat vs. Republican. The president said he wanted ideas, and now he’s getting them. Republicans dealt themselves back into the game with Friday’s White House meeting, and Obama’s return to the Hill Tuesday is another two-way opportunity. And GOPers offer something that Obama really, really wants: votes. Not votes that this new White House crowd needs — that would make this easier, in a way. These are votes the president wants — so the stimulus bill doesn’t belong to Democrats alone, and so the luster of Obama’s leadership doesn’t fade with the crowds that have already left Washington. The bill will be judged a political success not simply if it becomes law, but if it’s deemed “bipartisan” — with joint ownership that takes a first step toward the new brand of politics Obama has promised. “President Barack Obama proved he could win over Republican voters. Now he’s trying to show he can do the same with the party’s lawmakers,” Bloomberg’s Laura Litvan writes. “Obama’s effort may determine whether his calls for bipartisanship during the presidential campaign will translate into support for the White House’s broader legislative agenda on issues from energy to health care.” “This week, the hard work of selling of the stimulus goes into high gear, as President Obama prepares to head to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to talk reluctant Republicans into getting behind the $825 billion economic rescue package,” ABC’s John Hendren reports. “Obama and his circle have engaged in an ambitious campaign to win over congressional Republicans, including what many describe as more direct outreach from the president than they ever received under the Bush administration. This week, Obama plans to address House and Senate Republicans at their regular caucus luncheons,” Sasha Issenberg reports in The Boston Globe. “President Obama must now prove himself to be salesman in chief,” per the New York Daily News’ Michael Saul. Said Vice President Joe Biden, on “Face the Nation”: “There will be, I’m sure, more compromise.” (Does Nancy Pelosi agree?) As for your definitions — know that the House may pass the stimulus package this week without a single Republican vote. “Because the Republicans don’t vote for it doesn’t mean they didn’t have an opportunity to,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on “This Week.” “Bipartisanship should mean more than having the opportunity to vote on Democrat bills,” Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., told CNN’s John King Sunday. One potential ally who won’t be: “Sen. John McCain said Sunday he would not support President Obama’s $825 billion economic stimulus plan in its current form because the House Democrats’ bill contains too much unnecessary spending and not enough tax cuts,” per ABC’s Tahman Bradley. Said McCain, on “Fox News Sunday”: “I’m opposed to most of the provisions in the bill. As it stands now, I would not support it.” When is a win not really a win? “If it gets no Republican votes — a growing possibility — the plan could trigger the kind of ugly, divisive partisan fight that Obama has been trying mightily to avoid,” McClatchy’s David Lightman and Kevin G. Hall report. This is a campaign — in every sense. “For Barack Obama and fellow Democrats pitching an $825 billion stimulus package, here’s what sells: Describe the plan as ‘bold.’ Don’t mention the eye-popping amount but play up job creation, according to Democratic pollster Peter Hart’s research,” Politico’s Carrie Budoff Brown reports. “Sure enough, in his radio address Saturday, Obama followed the script. He spoke of acting ‘boldly,’ focused heavily on jobs and never once mentioned the cost.” She continues: “Obama promised to end the perpetual campaign in Washington but in the first test of his administration, he’s pulling out all the tactics of one — conducting polls, prepping lawmakers with carefully honed talking points and taking in research by outside groups.” What does the research say about this term? “Only five days into the Obama presidency, members of the new administration and Democratic leaders in Congress are already dancing around one of the most politically delicate questions about the financial bailout: Is the president prepared to nationalize a huge swath of the nation’s banking system?” David E. Sanger writes in The New York Times. “So far, President Obama’s top aides have steered clear of the word entirely, and they are still actively discussing other alternatives, including creating a ‘bad bank’ that would nationalize the worst nonperforming loans by taking them off the hands of financial institutions without actually taking ownership of the banks. Others talk of de facto nationalization, in which the government owns a sizeable chunk of the banks but not a majority, with all that connotes.” Obama is set to get a boost Monday. The Senate is expected to confirm Timothy Geithner as Treasury secretary. Helping it sell: “President Obama’s stimulus package would give the Big Apple $3.4 billion over the next two years to help close its massive budget gap, officials announced last night,” per the New York Post. “In announcing the $3.4 billion in anticipated aid, Mayor Bloomberg, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Charles Rangel said it would alleviate, but not eliminate, the city’s budget crunch.” And: “Kids, particularly those with disabilities or who come from poor families, could benefit if the federal government follows through on plans to salvage the economy by funneling billions into public programs and projects around the country,” Meg Heckman writes in the Concord Monitor. Not helping it sell: “There are plenty of suggestions for bridge repairs, road paving projects, new buses, trolley, garbage trucks and school improvements on the list. But there is also $886,000 to build a 36-hole ‘disk-golf’ course — think Frisbee throwing meets golf — in Austin, Texas, and $33,725 for automatically flushing toilets in Sumter, S.C. And don’t forget the $1.4 million children’s water park requested by Pine Bluff, Ark., and the $500,000 that Chula Vista, Calif., wants for a dog park,” ABC’s Scott Mayerowitz writes. “As the stimulus plan works its way through Congress, every group from the mayors to road builders to zoo operators is looking for their piece of the pie.” There’s broader implications for all of this, too. If there’s going to be a new kind of politics, it has to start somewhere. Peter Nicholas, in the Los Angeles Times: “Obama’s stimulus — an early test of his skills in winning a major legislation victory — is on track to pass before the congressional break in mid-February. What remains unclear is whether it will attract significant Republican support. In effect, the White House and congressional Republicans are engaged in the early stages of a political negotiation in which Obama seeks to pass his stimulus program with at least a plausible claim of bipartisan support.” Does he need to negotiate? “The most encouraging thing I’ve heard lately is Mr. Obama’s reported response to Republican objections to a spending-oriented economic plan: ‘I won.’ Indeed he did — and he should disregard the huffing and puffing of those who lost,” Paul Krugman writes in his New York Times column. Bringing the personal to the presidency: “In his first week in office, Obama is giving clear signs that he is willing to trade on his own popularity, personal suasion and loose-limbed ease in the spotlight to help him lead the nation,” Michael Fletcher reports in The Washington Post. “For now, Obama seems confident that he can use his personal appeal to help effect change.” Reality checks: “President Obama showed up for his first full day at work on Wednesday determined, as he later told the nation, to make ‘a clean break from business as usual.’ But it did not take long for the new president to discover that there were limits to his power to turn his campaign rhetoric into reality,” Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote in the Sunday New York Times. “He wrestled with fresh challenges at every turn, found some principles hard to consistently apply and showed himself willing to be pragmatic — at the risk of irking some supporters who had their hearts set on idealism.” Says David Axelrod: “Obviously, you can’t solve problems overnight. But what you can do is signal a sense of motion, a sense of ferment and activity and direction. And I think that he is doing that.” Says Newt Gingrich: “I think they are right at the cusp of either sliding down into a world where their words have no meaning or having to follow up their words with real behavior.” Your stakes, per Bill Kristol (in his last New York Times column): “Liberalism’s fate rests to an astonishing degree on his shoulders. If he governs successfully, we’re in a new political era. If not, the country will be open to new conservative alternatives,” Kristol writes. “Obama’s rhetoric suggests that he understands this issue. But does Congress? Can the American political system rise to the challenge?” Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria writes. “The United States will have to enact extraordinary measures, many of them unpopular, run up huge deficits, then just as quickly start to unwind these guarantees and commitments, get onto a path of strict fiscal prudence, reform entitlements and bring our financial house in order.” The Bush legacy is a cushion — but it won’t always be there. “There will be a time when just being the non-Bush won’t be sufficient. Results will be expected; programs and initiatives will be analyzed on their own merits,” Bloomberg’s Al Hunt writes. “Obama has won plaudits for moving to close Guantanamo. What he does with the few dozen really bad guys remains uncertain. He inherits deficits from Bush this year; by 2012, they will be Obama’s.” Another piece of the sales push Monday, per ABC’s Jake Tapper: “The president will also deliver brief remarks in the morning that deal with the creation of green jobs in his stimulus package: – modernizing 75 percent of federal buildings and 2 million homes; – doubling enough renewable energy generating capacity to power 6 million American homes; – modernizing the nation’s electricity grid will result in more than 3,000 miles of new or modernized transmission lines and 40 million ‘Smart Meters’ in American homes; – and launching the Clean Energy Finance Initiative to leverage $100 billion in private sector clean energy investments over three years.” Also Monday, a White House push on the environment: “President Obama will direct the EPA today to reconsider a Bush-era decision that stopped California and more than a dozen other states from setting their own stricter limits on auto emissions, according to sources familiar with the matter,” report Ken Bensinger and Jim Tankersley, in the Los Angeles Times. “Should the agency allow a waiver from federal rules, states could require automakers to increase the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks far above current limits. It also would fulfill a long-held goal of environmentalists, as well as one of Obama’s campaign promises.” “The move will signal a major policy break from his predecessor on an issue that has divided key Democratic Party constituencies,” Stephen Power and Laura Meckler write in The Wall Street Journal. “Mr. Obama’s announcement is almost certain to spark a war between two key Democratic constituencies: environmentalists and state officials who want power to set greenhouse-gas rules, and auto makers and unions who say such rules would exacerbate the industry’s woes following the worst year of U.S. vehicle sales in more than a decade.” “Obama, who has consistently urged U.S. automakers to produce more fuel-efficient cars, is likely to accelerate the timeline for raising the nation’s corporate average fuel economy for cars and trucks,” Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson report in The Washington Post. Blago’s back — and talking to everyone except the state Senate that’s putting him on trial starting Monday. “Setting the stage for a momentous act of political repudiation, the state Senate prepared to open the first impeachment trial of a governor in Illinois history on Monday and disgraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich acknowledged his days in office were numbered,” Rick Pearson and Ray Long report in the Chicago Tribune. “With senators serving as Blagojevich’s judge and jury, House representatives prosecuting the case, and the governor mounting no defense and likely not attending, the Senate trial is expected to conclude within days.” Blagojevich will be a no-show at the trial, and he had other plans . . . “They took snippets of conversation completely out of context,” the governor told ABC’s Diane Sawyer on “Good Morning America” Monday. “The effort was to work to have a senator who can best represent Illinois.” What’s the context? “I can’t go into the details of that case. . . . The whole story will come out.” He confirms that he was considering naming Oprah to the Senate: “She probably wouldn’t take it,” Blagojevich told Sawyer. Think he doesn’t know politics? He says he still wants to call Valerie Jarrett, Rahm Emanuel, and Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., as well as a “whole bunch of senators” as witnesses. And Monday’s poet of the day: Rudyard Kipling. Next up: Blago is on ABC’s “The View” Monday, then does Larry King. “Barbara Walters is not on his jury,” said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. (And just imagine if she was . . . ) “The trial will be held even if no one representing Blagojevich is present, said Eric Madiar, the Senate’s chief legal counsel and parliamentarian. It takes a two-thirds vote — 40 of the 59 state senators — to oust the governor,” USA Today’s Judy Keen reports. Also Monday — a new phase for the Minnesota Senate contest. “Today, the Great Minnesota Recount gets turned over to a new cast of characters,” Kevin Duchscehere writes in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. ” In place of the state Canvassing Board, a three-judge panel will begin what could be a weeks- or months-long trial to decide who won Minnesota’s U.S. Senate race.” Fallout from New York: Hil and “Gill” broke bread Sunday, with Paterson and Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. But the fun continues. “Democrats are increasingly pessimistic about Gov. Paterson’s political survival,” Kenneth Lovett reports in the New York Daily News. “Paterson’s handling of the U.S. Senate appointment has even his allies critical of the governor — and fearful that erosion in public confidence in him could impact efforts next year by Democrats to keep their tenuous control over the state Senate as well as the controller’s office.” “In the end, it wasn’t Caroline Kennedy who was out of her weight class. It was Gov. David Paterson,” Mike Lupica writes in his New York Daily News column. Damage control? “Caroline Kennedy’s ‘personal reasons’ for withdrawing from Senate consideration were not connected to damaging claims from Gov. Paterson’s camp that she owed back taxes, had a nanny problem or faced a marital scandal, two sources close to her have told The Post,” Fredric U. Dicker reports in the New York Post. “The source said that Kennedy, who had been touted as the leading candidate to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton for some two months, would have taken the job if Paterson had moved more swiftly to make a decision, and would have said yes even as late as Monday or late Tuesday — because the family problem had not yet arisen.” Snap judgments, from Quinnipiac University polling: “Caroline Kennedy and her aides are more to blame than Gov. David Paterson and his team for the controversy surrounding her failed bid for New York’s U.S. Senate seat, voters say 49 – 15 percent in a Quinnipiac University poll released today. . . . New York State voters approve 46 – 30 percent, with 24 percent undecided, of Gov. Paterson’s selection of Albany area U.S. Rep. Kirsten Gillebrand for the Senate seat. . . . Republicans back the selection 56 – 27 percent, a wider margin than the 41 – 35 percent among Democrats.” Who better to change the spectacle of senators appointed by governors than senators appointed by governors? “From a tactical standpoint, these new Senators will inoculate themselves against charges of cronyism when the time comes for them to actually face voters,” Phil Singer blogs. “The fact that they are all Democrats would also send the message that the Democratic party’s rhetoric about reform is sincere and backed by action.” Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., likes the idea: “I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute,” Feingold said in a statement released Sunday. The Kicker: “If I knew they were listening, I wouldn’t have used those words.” — Rod Blagojevich, on Patrick Fitzgerald’s tapes. (He added, however, that when he was cursing, “There were no women on the phone.”) “I thought about Mandela, Dr. King and Gandhi and tried to put some perspective to all this and that is what I am doing now.” — Blagojevich, digging himself in deeper. “I’ve done virtually everything right on behalf of the people.” — Blagojevich, on “GMA” Monday. Bookmark the link below to get The Note’s daily morning analysis:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/the_note/index.html For up-to-the-minute political updates check out The Note’s blog . . . all day every day:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/ Follow The Note blog on Twitter: http://twitter.com/thenote
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention 
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
No news on Obama TOP AIDES issued subpoena including David Axelrod.
The sickening MEDIA bias needs to stop and start reporting the news. Hillary Clinton was right when the news appears to offer Obama nothing but PILLOWS.
“I remeber nothing” is going to be the motto of the Obama administration
Posted by: bundie | January 26, 2009, 8:37 am 8:37 am
bundie ….
Obama investigated himself concerning Blago so why would the Media question his integrity ????
Yes it is sickening how the media never reports the real news on Obama.
Obama will just fire the Attorney Generals who issued the Subpoenas and the MEDIA will start chanting the “WE LOVE OBAMA” theme again
Posted by: putski | January 26, 2009, 8:41 am 8:41 am
Buy trying to apease the Republicans I am afraid that Obama is going to lose the support of the people.
At this time we don’t need a bunch of taxes cuts or a stimulas package we need jobs, jobs and more jobs.
No matter what the Republicans are not going to support what you do.
Posted by: LVKpride | January 26, 2009, 8:42 am 8:42 am
well, good to see no change has happend and Obama is a liar just like the rest of his party and the stupid, whiny, wailing liberal media….
Posted by: kinghenry | January 26, 2009, 9:36 am 9:36 am
putski and bundie – great names for a couple of silly people smearing the new President with nonsense. May I suggest you oppose the President on his policies, if you disagree, but leave the bashing until you have evidence he is as corrupt at Bush.
Posted by: Amy | January 26, 2009, 9:41 am 9:41 am
Stupid republicans, they a already screwed up this country big time. Mabey they should just step aside and let Obama handle things now. In two years this will all be a faint memory. Got a bday, I need some work.
Posted by: Bozo the Clown | January 26, 2009, 9:49 am 9:49 am
While Obama strives to get his stimulus package through congress with Republican support, out in the wings the bragging has already started about how some intend to get their pork paydays out of the package despite Obama’s telling us he is not going to tolerate such activity. Maybe Obama should spend some time talking about how he is going to deal with such operators an what the consequences will be for anyone spending stimulus package funds for their personal pork projects.
If the stimulus package is approved and the press ends up in the position of being able to point out specific examples of the programs ineffectiveness in dealing with such taxpayer ripoffs Obama’s credibility is going to take a pretty sound hit at a very early stage in his administration.
So, what’s he going to do to see that it doesn’t happen or if it does what will the consequences be?
If he doesn’t address this issue he could very well end up in the unenviable position of having his entire effort labeled as “just an obscene amount of taxpayer money thrown against the wall to the benefit of the earmark crowd.
THEN what???
Posted by: chuck, Illinois | January 26, 2009, 9:51 am 9:51 am
Bozo let us know when you get a job? I need my floors waxed.
Posted by: Jim Rod | January 26, 2009, 9:51 am 9:51 am
I give Obama huge amounts of credit. he is trying to get things done by embracing idealogies from everyone.
the only people who are complaining are the typical neo-con conservaitves who would kill their own mothers if it meant their idealogies were the only ones that counted.
Posted by: Death to conservatism | January 26, 2009, 9:55 am 9:55 am
How big’s your Rod Jim?
Posted by: Bozoz the Clown | January 26, 2009, 10:01 am 10:01 am
In truth, Obama supporters are going to learn the truth. He is just another politician willing to say anything to get elected. It won’t take long for his rhetoric to go sour and for people to wake up and realize that they have been duped. Or maybe not…..As long as they can blame it on the Republicans.
Posted by: KC_1971 | January 26, 2009, 10:07 am 10:07 am
Voters wll be watching to see what their representatives do. While I am not a Republican I do agree with John McCain – there are too many tax breaks and pork in this bill and it needs to be voted down. I will lobby my Senator to vote against it until there is a much leaner bill that has alot of accountability. Pelosi and Obama just want to ride their magic carpet ride and proclam this is the only answer- it is not – it is money that will be lost and wasted like the first 350 billion!!
Posted by: jimbo | January 26, 2009, 10:13 am 10:13 am
Bozo see thats your way of life. Your way or no way. we are in debt up and past the ears. We do not meed more debt.
If we are than lets give every tax payer who filed in 2007 50,000.00 each to stimulate the economy!! We will pay taxes on it and spend it or save it. WOW would that not be a major boost and save everyone?? It would sure cost less than 825 Billion!!
Posted by: Jim Rod | January 26, 2009, 10:14 am 10:14 am
Headlines On This Date 4 Years Ago:
“Republicans spending $42 million on inauguration while troops Die in unarmored Humvees”
“Bush extravagance exceeds any reason during tough economic times”
“Fat cats get their $42 million inauguration party, Ordinary Americans get the shaft”
HEADLINES Today:
“Historic Obama Inauguration will cost only $52 million”
“Obama Spends $52 million on inauguration; America Needs A Big Party”
“Everyman Obama shows America how to
celebrate”
“Citibank executives contribute $8 million to Obama Inauguration”
Posted by: Brian in NH | January 26, 2009, 10:48 am 10:48 am
Its not a stimulus, its a pandering.
We tried this once, last summer and it failed miserably. Gas stations did well with it, people could afford $4 gas. Grocery stores did well, people could afford $3/gallon milk. The credit card companies did well, a lot of people put the “stimulus” toward their balances.
After it was all over, there was no more spending, no stimulus. This round will be almost the same, but the difference is, that we know from past performance that its not going to make an appreciable impact.
All we will be left with is a trillion dollars in newly minted money, inflation and a higher rate on the Treasury Bond, which means us tax payers get stuck with the tab for this pandering pile of steaming garbage.
Posted by: RR | January 26, 2009, 11:00 am 11:00 am
people can say what they want, they gave all these big wigs 700 billion in bailouts and now that its time to help the taxpayers( those who are footing the bill ) now theres a problem, mccain can kiss my a**, he didn’t question anything about the bailout for wall street now he wants to be all inspector gadget, please!
Posted by: Latisha Malone | January 26, 2009, 11:01 am 11:01 am
I guess President Obama can’t walk on water. Just another human, just another politician, and more debt on top of debt.
Posted by: Angelo | January 26, 2009, 11:04 am 11:04 am
you know all this anti-Obama crap is getting on my nerves. Even if he did’nt win the presidency the next person in office would have had the same problems, and trust, with what he inherited they wouldn’t be doing any better. The man hasn’t been in office a week and already their planning his failure, it took Bush 8 yrs to screw us over, give the man room to breath, d**n!
Posted by: Latisha Malone | January 26, 2009, 11:08 am 11:08 am
@Angelo
while your talkin, why don’t you inlighten us on what you would do in that position, or is it that you don’t know what to do either, besides sound like a sarcastic d**k.
Posted by: Latisha Malone | January 26, 2009, 11:11 am 11:11 am
if Obama wanted to stimulate the economy he would start with reducing corporate taxes, capital taxes and the taxes of the middleclass. NO FREEBIES!!! He would rebuild the infastructure putting people to work and start building nuclear plants, wind machines and promote clean coal & gas. this would do more to stimulate CHANGE than all the PORK in that trillion dollar spending democrate spree!!!!!
Posted by: lovingpolitics | January 26, 2009, 11:13 am 11:13 am
Im just glad we have a black president in office now we have can see some change
Posted by: Erika | January 26, 2009, 11:13 am 11:13 am
Obama’s number 1 mistake. The republicans see his attempts to reach out as a weakness and are now trying to see how far they can push him around.
Posted by: jan | January 26, 2009, 11:16 am 11:16 am
I don’t believe President Obama meant Politics as usual when he asked for ideas. If this is an excuse for Washington Politicians to lapse back into past behaviors (comfortable in their homes with food and medical care)and unable to take swift and decisive action to help the American People then set up a National Web sight to take quality ideas from those of us that have them, and have the best interest of this Nation at heart.
Posted by: Patsy Malee | January 26, 2009, 11:18 am 11:18 am
“you know all this anti-Obama crap is getting on my nerves.”
Fortunately, it’s not very widespread. Polls indicate that the majority of people (including half of all Republicans polled) approve of what they’ve seen of him so far (as PE and as President). The people on this site are people who came because it was linked from Matt Drudge’s blog. They’re the “special” people. These threads are not representative of how the general public is feeling.
Posted by: Silky | January 26, 2009, 11:21 am 11:21 am
No real Republican should support Socialist programs.
Posted by: Ron | January 26, 2009, 11:24 am 11:24 am
“The republicans see his attempts to reach out as a weakness and are now trying to see how far they can push him around.”
That’s fine. And he’ll show them how far he’s willing to be pushed. They can “see” it any way they want to, but reality is going to be reality. He’s not going to walked on, or Rahm will start snapping people’s arms off.
Posted by: Silky | January 26, 2009, 11:29 am 11:29 am
Why cant we have 425 billion in tax cuts, 300 billion in infrastructure projects, and 100 billion in other areas.
Posted by: nubiangent08 | January 26, 2009, 11:30 am 11:30 am
At least President Obama is reaching out to I dont care do nothing greedy Gop! Give the Man a break He is trying to work in a Bi-partisan way. and hell will freeze over before The greedy I dont care do nothing Republicans Will ever be Bi partisan, funny I dont recall Bush ever trying to work with the dems only Begging them for the Bailout for the rich ceos on wall street As far as Mccain what a sob he is, Didnt hear his whining about the Wall street Bailout Ran off to Washington for that one,Once again the Republicans motto IF IT AINT HELP FOR THE RICH AND WEALTHY AND WE GET NOTHING OUT OF IT THEN HELL NO WE DONT SUPPORT IT,THEN THEY WONDER WHY THEIR PATHETIC PARTY IS DEAD GOP-PATHETIC BUNCH OF SORRY A$$$$ES
Posted by: Angie | January 26, 2009, 11:31 am 11:31 am
FOR ALL OF THOSE CRYING SOCIALISIM
1-If you got Elderly parents or Grandparents and they recive Medicare get them off it!(SOCIALISIM)
2-If you lose your Job Dont apply for Unemployment (SOCIALISIM)
3If godforbid it becomes hard for you to Feed your Children or get them to the doctors Dont you dare apply for Foodstamps or Medicaid (SOCIALISIM)STARVE TO DEATH
4 And godforbid if you should ever become Disabled and cant work Dont you dare apply for Social security Disability (SOCIALISIM)
I often wonder how many hypocrites on the right receive some of these programs or Know some that do!!
Republicans are hypocrites!
Posted by: ANGIE | January 26, 2009, 11:40 am 11:40 am
Why are we stuck on calling this “partisan” or “bi-partisan” – why not call it what it is: people standing up for what they believe is right. This package is going to pass and it’s going to fail to stimulate the economy – if I wanted to keep my job as a senator or congressman, I’d want to be on record as opposing it from the get-go.
Keep speaking out GOP – our grandkids are counting on it.
Posted by: Enough! | January 26, 2009, 11:48 am 11:48 am
Yeah. Clinton promised “change” too. Its just a different manner of foolishness. It doesn’t matter if its Bush or our new Sun King, their true objectives are quite partisan and opaque – no matter what bi-partisan transparency crap is spread on it.
Posted by: N'erdowell | January 26, 2009, 11:48 am 11:48 am
Angie – If you live in a socialist society, you must participate in order to survive. If you live in a free market capitalist society you must participate in order to survive. The difference? Socialism offers no compromise while capitalism can throw in a socialist program once in a while to care for those who need it.
Posted by: N'erdowell | January 26, 2009, 11:55 am 11:55 am
ANGIE – No one is denying that parts of our country have been socialized for decades – education, medicare/medicaid, food stamps, social security, etc. – the argument is that the government (for decades – republicans and democrats) have dropped the ball big time on those programs – our public education system does not provide equal education for everyone, social security is bankrupt and medicaid and food stamps do not provide enough incentive to get people off the rolls (remember the failed “welfare to work” program of the Clinton administration).
Ironically, when schools turn to their communities rather than the government to solve their problems, quality of education improves and costs go down (thanks to the free market). When people invest for their own retirement, they enjoy more comfort in their later years (thanks to the free market). When churches, businesses, schools and the community join forces and address the reasons why people remain on welfare and address those causes, welfare numbers drop (thanks to the free market).
The problem isn’t socialism – the problem is that the government doesn’t do anything well. Leave the solutions to the community, and problems are solved. Leave the solutions to the government, and the problems worsen.
By the way, unemployment insurance is paid by employers and administered by states – it’s not really a socialism-styled program – it actually has roots in the free market.
Posted by: Sally Sue | January 26, 2009, 11:55 am 11:55 am
Angie – by the way, can you name one innovation of the past decade or two that came out of a socialist country? What has France or England invented lately? You can name hundreds of innovations that were developed thanks to good-old fashioned capitalism, but none that were developed in socialist countries. You might want to ask yourself why that is.
Posted by: Sally Sue | January 26, 2009, 12:00 pm 12:00 pm
Republican voters talking about the “grandkids”….now that’s rich.
“I often wonder how many hypocrites on the right receive some of these programs or Know some that do!!
Republicans are hypocrites!”
Yep.
Posted by: Silky | January 26, 2009, 12:02 pm 12:02 pm
“Angie – by the way, can you name one innovation of the past decade or two that came out of a socialist country? What has France or England invented lately?”
France and England are Socialist countries? Somebody might want to tell them that.
Posted by: Silky | January 26, 2009, 12:06 pm 12:06 pm
And Sally Sue, this country has always had “socialist” elements in it’s government. Particularly, when all this innovation was happening.
Posted by: Silky | January 26, 2009, 12:08 pm 12:08 pm
“I often wonder how many hypocrites on the right receive some of these programs or Know some that do!!” – Posted by: ANGIE |
Well, this republican does not receive any of those programs. As I save for retirement, I will never need Social Security. As I save for a rainy day, I will never need food stamps or welfare. As I pinch pennies to afford top-notch medical insurance, I will never need state medical insurance. As I put a hefty downpayment on my house, pay extra each month and bought a house well below my means, I won’t need a federal bailout.
I send my kids to private school, so don’t need public education. And no, we’re not wealthy, we just don’t take expensive vacations or eat out. We buy our clothes on sale or at thrift stores and vigilantly save our pennies to afford private school. We buy food when it’s on sale and stock up and make our own laundry detergent (envrio friendly), dishwasher detergent, air freshener, windshield wiper fluid, etc. to save money.
Not everyone needs these social programs – some people actually take care of themselves. Just imagine if ALL Americans had that drive to live frugally and take care of themselves – it would put a lot of government pencil pushers out of work wouldn’t it?
Posted by: True Conservative | January 26, 2009, 12:08 pm 12:08 pm
“As I save for retirement, I will never need Social Security.”
Yeah, good luck with that.
Posted by: Silky | January 26, 2009, 12:09 pm 12:09 pm
Silky -France is a Republic but the Socialist Party has been very powerful for many years and has helped to usher in the social programs that are the cornerstone of modern French society.
Posted by: Sally Sue | January 26, 2009, 12:14 pm 12:14 pm
When François Mitterand of the Parti Socialiste won the Presidency of France in 1981 the Socialists had achieved domination of the politics of France. The municipal elections of 1977 had given Socialists unprecedented local control of cities and the 1981 national elections, in addition to electing Mitterand, gave Socialists a majority in the Assembly, the legislature of France. The Parti Socialiste had been in opposition since 1958.
Despite the Socialists great electoral victories of 1981 it was perhaps a time of ideological retreat because the Socialist platform over time was becoming essentially indistinguishable from that of its electoral opponents. The Parti Socialiste was becoming a centrist party. While gone was the fervor of 1905 when the Declaration of Socialist Unity declared:
The Socialist Party is a class party whose aim is the socialization of the means of production and exchange.
Posted by: observer | January 26, 2009, 12:16 pm 12:16 pm
I belive President Bush has killed Capitialisim!And SALLY SUE What has America truly Invented latley? President Bush and the Republicans were so busy living in the stoneages and not getting in the 21st Century. That is why today Iam proud of My President for finally getting up to speed in the 21st And finally doing something about The Enviorment, see the Problems with the do nothing Republicans they fail to see the world is changing and they refuse to get out of the stoneages And think anew. Same thing with their Trickle down Sh–t IT HAS NOT WORKED THERE TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY +PRETENDING IT TRICKLES DOWN HAS NOT WORKED! THE TIME HAS COME FOR THE GOP TO THINK ANEW!!!
Posted by: ANGIE | January 26, 2009, 12:17 pm 12:17 pm
TRUE CONSERVITIVE
Bravo for you I am Proud of you! BUT NEVER SAY NEVER MY FRIEND No one knows what the future holds!
Posted by: ANGIE | January 26, 2009, 12:19 pm 12:19 pm
I would like the face of America to change for the rest of the world. Right now we are the country that everyone hates. Wouldn’t it be nice to help out the less fortunate members of the world to try to make our image better? It would take $19 billion annually to help with global poverty and hunger. The U.S. government spent $522 billion on the defense budget. The Borgen Project (www.borgenproject.org) has some new ideas that would help eliminate global poverty and help make our country safer and liked throughout the world.
Posted by: cougar_gal06 | January 26, 2009, 12:20 pm 12:20 pm
Yeah, good luck with that.
Posted by: Silky |
What is that supposed to mean? Planning for retirement is what we Americans SHOULD do – invest conservatively (T-Bills, bonds, aggressive savings – no stock market) so that we don’t become a drain on the government. Are you implying that you know something I don’t know about these types of investments?
You may not be saving for your retirement, but don’t blame me for your lack of foresight and certainly don’t project your frustrations with yourself on me. Some people do live frugally so that they can save for tomorrow – it’s hard but it pays off in the end. Give it a try.
Posted by: True Conservative | January 26, 2009, 12:20 pm 12:20 pm
Bravo for you I am Proud of you! BUT NEVER SAY NEVER MY FRIEND No one knows what the future holds!
Posted by: ANGIE
True, I certainly don’t know what the future holds, but that’s why I plan for a rainy day. And to me honest, most people I know do as well.
Of course, the day could come when I need some help, but I am certainly doing everything I can to avoid that. I think we’d be a stronger country if everyone did the same.
Posted by: True Conservative | January 26, 2009, 12:23 pm 12:23 pm
The president campaigned on being bipartisan I think. Then why when the republicans asked about the plan he said “I won the election”. Come on now. He did not win because he promised to give tax checks to those who did not pay taxes. He won because he promised to be a different type of politician. He is sounding more and more that he is the typical politician. Partisan and arrogant
Posted by: Jack | January 26, 2009, 12:26 pm 12:26 pm
Angie – I’m not going to pretend to be George Bush fan – so much of what he did was downright wrong, but he’s not a conservative. Reagan was our last real conservative. The first Bush bailout was a mistake, and this second one is too. If our leaders would listen to the opposition instead of trying to shut it down, some real solutions might get through.
But as for the tax cuts – that’s one thing Bush did that I actually liked. He cut taxes for ALL taxpayers to pre-Clinton levels – rich, poor, middle class, business owners and workers – we all paid less under Bush, not just the rich. The myth of Bush cutting taxes for only the wealthy can easily be dispelled by visiting the IRS website and looking at the history of tax rates in this country.
Posted by: Sally Sue | January 26, 2009, 12:30 pm 12:30 pm
In case you weren’t looking, companies making announcements this morning regarding jobs, announced a total of 28,000 positions to be eliminated. They included Home Depot, Pfizer, Catepiller, Microsoft. Those were just the ones making the news this morning. This economy needs an immediate jolt to start working again. The best way to achieve that is by implementing “The Fair Tax Act of 2009″.. This legislation is in place in Congress and is ready to be signed. It just needs the signature of President Obama…….The FairTax:
* Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
* Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
* Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
* Allows American products to compete fairly
* Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
* Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
* Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
* Abolishes the IRS
Start e-mailing your representatives and urge them to get this legislation passed.
Posted by: devilkev | January 26, 2009, 12:35 pm 12:35 pm
TRUE CONSERVITIVE
I agree we would be a stronger Country,But lets Just say God for bid something happen out of your Control and you needed help Would you apply for one of those Socialisim Programs?
Posted by: Angie | January 26, 2009, 12:36 pm 12:36 pm
“What is that supposed to mean?”
Ask soon-to-be and current retirees how their retirement funds are looking right now.
Posted by: Silky | January 26, 2009, 12:39 pm 12:39 pm
Sally Sue
Your wrong Regan was not a true Conservitive more like a Moderate,Bush was a true far right Conservitive,hahah dont make me laugh about The Bush Tax cuts They were for the Wealthy Bush was relying on that GOOD OLE IDEALOGY OF TRICKLING DOWN NEWS-FLASH IT HAS NOT WORKED!
Posted by: Angie | January 26, 2009, 12:41 pm 12:41 pm
You can be sure that I will give and work so that we can defeat John McCain if he persists in blocking the stimulus package. Republicans had their way as far as managing the economy for many years and have a look at the results. For McCain to try to blow up the plan by insisting on tax cuts is the height of folly. We tried exactly that and look at the economic results. If he insists on such action, expect concerted efforts to defeat him when his re-election takes place. Republicans apparently did not get the message. Many of us Republicans left the party and voted for the Democrats just because of THEIR adherence to their philosophy in the face of the suffering of the people in our country. We do not intend to stand by and let it happen again!
Posted by: Mari | January 26, 2009, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm
“we all paid less under Bush, not just the rich.’
How’d that work out?
Posted by: Amy | January 26, 2009, 1:00 pm 1:00 pm
Ask soon-to-be and current retirees how their retirement funds are looking right now.
Posted by: Silky
Silky, the only people complaining about their retirement funds are the ones who put their money in the stock market! Some people plan for retirement without the stock market (see my earlier post) Gosh, the rule I grew up learning was “don’t put money in the stock market unless it’s money you can afford to lose.” – The stock market is a risk and not everyone risks their retirement funds!
I think you are deliberately trying to misunderstand what I am saying.
Posted by: True Conservative | January 26, 2009, 1:25 pm 1:25 pm
How’d that work out?
Posted by: Amy
It worked out well for me. I paid fewer taxes and gave more to charity.
Posted by: Lil Mel | January 26, 2009, 1:26 pm 1:26 pm
Angie – Conservatives have complained bitterly about Bush for the past few years because he did not behave like a conservative (yes, he did say he was one). In his defense (not that I’m a Bush fan), I think he acted on bad advice and perhaps might have been a conservative at heart, but the bottom line is that he did not behave like a fiscal conservative.
As for Reagan, he was a true fiscal conservative. Yes, he was a former democrat (remember his quote, “I didn’t leave the democratic party, it left me”) . Many of his followers don’t actually consider themselves Republicans – they call themselves “Reagan Democrats” because they want to see a fiscally conservative government alongside moderate social programs.
Posted by: Sally Sue | January 26, 2009, 1:33 pm 1:33 pm
Angie – regarding tax cuts, the numbers don’t lie. You can either believe the propaganda or look at the facts. If you chose to look at the facts, here’s the link. And the IRS is not partisan.
http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=102174,00.html
Posted by: Sally Sue | January 26, 2009, 1:37 pm 1:37 pm
“I think you are deliberately trying to misunderstand what I am saying.”
No, I’m not. I’m saying that a lot of people put a good chunk of their retirement funds in the stock market and took a serious beating. Much more of a beating than anybody could have possibly seen coming. And my broader point is that you can plan and plan and plan and plan, but sometimes s*** just happens and you find yourself in a tough spot. But I applaud you in your discipline. I’m not trying to give you a hard time.
Posted by: Silky | January 26, 2009, 1:38 pm 1:38 pm
Bush/McCain really had no idea what was in store for them, when they tried to enter the whitehouse. I mean, Bush had 2 terms, but he never really did anything but put us in a pointless war.
Obama has many, MANY of the same views that Clinton had when he was in office, so I hope he will bring about the same prosperity that Clinton brought.
Posted by: Clayton | January 26, 2009, 1:39 pm 1:39 pm
“I think he acted on bad advice”
Absolutely. And paranoia. I’ve said all along, I don’t think he’s evil, just stupid.
Posted by: Silky | January 26, 2009, 1:40 pm 1:40 pm
PRESIDENT CLINTON-HUGE SURPLUS
PRESIDENT BUSH-HUGE DEFICIT And the Republicans are the ones Fiscial Conservitave, pleeeeze dont make me laugh! wake up Republicans your party is not what it claims to be. President Bush took our nice Surplus that clinton left and spent spent spent and not in America thats for sure, Most if not all of that Money got spent on his dumb stupidy not thinking War PRESIDENT BUSH WORST STUPID PRESIDENT SO FAR!
Posted by: Angie | January 26, 2009, 2:02 pm 2:02 pm
“PRESIDENT CLINTON-HUGE SURPLUS
PRESIDENT BUSH-HUGE DEFICIT And the Republicans are the ones Fiscial Conservitave, pleeeeze dont make me laugh! wake up Republicans your party is not what it claims to be. President Bush took our nice Surplus that clinton left and spent spent spent and not in America thats for sure, Most if not all of that Money got spent on his dumb stupidy not thinking War PRESIDENT BUSH WORST STUPID PRESIDENT SO FAR!” Posted by: Angie
Angie, this will be my last response to you. The Clinton surplus myth is also just that – a myth that has been told so many times that people take it as truth. A simple visit to the U.S. treasury Department website quickly dispels the myth. Clinton did his part to grow (not reduce) the national debt. He did not leave a surplus.
Visit http://www.treasury.gov/ for the real story. You have to follow a few links to get there, but once you find the right document, again, the numbers don’t lie.
Again Angie, you can either believe what the politicians tell you or you can look at the facts.
Good luck.
Posted by: Sally Sue | January 26, 2009, 2:18 pm 2:18 pm
Sally Sue,
Would you agree FactCheck.org is a nonpartisan website? Would accept their figures? If we can not agree on facts, in this democracy, how are we going to have a meaningful debate?
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/during_the_clinton_administration_was_the_federal.html
Posted by: Amy | January 26, 2009, 3:15 pm 3:15 pm
I just have to share this. While googling info on Clinton’s surplus, I hit on this blast from the past. For twenty points, Who said it and when?
“For the first time in history, the United States is the aggressor in war, thereby forfeiting our reputation as a peace-loving nation. For the first time in history, a President has taken us into war when we were not attacked or threatened, and where we have no discernable national interest at stake.”
Phyllus Shaffly May 1999
Even better, she goes on to complain about Clinton using the surplus to pay for it!
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/1999/may99/99-05-26.html
Posted by: Amy | January 26, 2009, 4:06 pm 4:06 pm
Priceless:
“When the 106th Congress convened in January and Republicans were talking about passing a tax cut, Clinton got up on his soap box and sanctimoniously demanded that we save the surplus for Social Security. He rejected a tax cut because, he said, the American people might not spend it “right.”
Now Clinton has spent our Social Security surplus on his losing war.”
Phyllis Schlafly May, 1999
I love the Internet!
Posted by: Amy | January 26, 2009, 4:11 pm 4:11 pm
I actually don’t use factcheck.org – I go directly to the source (it’s easy to check for yourself to see if something is true or not).
The information can be verified by U.S. Treasury website where the national debt is updated daily and a history of the debt since January 1993 is online and available for anyone to see.
While the public debt went down during Clinton’s years in office, the intergovernmental holdings went up each year by a far greater amount–and, in turn, the total national debt (which is public debt + intergovernmental holdings) went up.
bottom line? It’s a myth that Clinton left a surplus.
When Clinton (and others) said that he had paid down the national debt, that was patently false–as can be seen, the national debt went up every single year. What Clinton did do was pay down the public debt–notice that the claimed surplus is relatively close to the decrease in the public debt for those years. But he paid down the public debt by borrowing far more money in the form of intergovernmental holdings.
But don’t take my word for it – go to the official source.
Posted by: Sally Sue | January 26, 2009, 4:38 pm 4:38 pm
I’m on to you Sally. You are using talking points from the rightwinger blogs spreading these lies all over the internet. Do you ever ask why nonpartisan sources never talk about “The Myth of the Clinton Surplus?”
Because it isn’t a myth. Even Phyllis said so, in 1999, complaining that Clinton used it to wage war in Bosnia.
Posted by: Amy | January 26, 2009, 5:00 pm 5:00 pm
Sally, Perhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt. Some people don’t understand the difference between a budget surplus and the National Debt. Clinton ran a budget surplus during his time in office (brought in more than he spent). However, the National Debt continued to climb because of the interest we owed.
Clinton did use the surplus to pay down a chunk of the debt, but not enough to erase it. Bush has run a defict AND added to the National Debt.
Sally, here is an article from 2000 explaining the budget surplus and what Clinton wanted done with it. I love the internet!
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/09/27/clinton.surplus/
Posted by: Amy | January 26, 2009, 5:12 pm 5:12 pm
Well, I’ll admit that I’m a conservative (conservative independent – not republican) and yes, I found that information on a conservative website – but it’s verified by the US Treasury Website, which I’d say is non-partisan. And yes, Amy, I do quite often visit liberal and moderate websites too (I love the Internet too). Mostly, what I want is for a president to run the federal budget the way I manage my own budget – safe, conservative and with an eye toward the future.
In the end, I often don’t know who to believe, so I try to check out the facts myself.
Here’s my source: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
Posted by: Sally Sue | January 26, 2009, 5:46 pm 5:46 pm
Sally Sue / Jan 26, 2009 5:46:23 PM; You said; …….”In the end, I often don’t know who to believe, so I try to check out the facts myself.”
Here’s my source: http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
I say; “AND this is your “Fact Source?” You have got to be kidding! Anyone who opts to use craig steiner, who presents himself as a “middle-of-the-road conservative” – is drunk with naivete or they’re a fraud.
Do you see this as “middle-of-the-road conservative?” Steiner’s response to limbaugh playing the parody; “Barack the magic negro”, he concluded his comment saying; “If someone doesn’t have the political sense to recognize a political time bomb waiting to explode, that’s the last person WE WANT chairing the Republican party.” (Capitalized emphasis is mine.) Why does he Avoid
noting the Fact He Is A Staunch Republican Conservative??? It’s nothing to be ashamed of….or is it?
Maybe it’s just part of his masquerade.
So you may as well reference any of the neocon’s who post here as your ‘Fact Proof Sources.’
Not only must you locate reliable,
independent, non-partisan proof sources, it’s imperative you’re able to interpret (understand) the information and data provided to you. (Incidentally, Amy’s made a admirable attempt to ‘help out.’)
Posted by: bobj72 | January 26, 2009, 7:42 pm 7:42 pm
“what I want is for a president to run the federal budget the way I manage my own budget – safe, conservative and with an eye toward the future.”
And to think Bush wanted to privatize social security. Can you imagine if our retirement savings were in the stock market today?
I think we all want a fiscally conservative government, but boy is that hard to get. In the past eight years, with the 300 million dollar bridge to nowhere spending Republicans in charge, we are in worse shape since the Depression. I don’t want to think about all the fraud and waste committed during the Iraq War, it makes me ill how private contractors soaked the tax payers and even endangered the troops.
Funny, you don’t read those stories on conservative websites. Why aren’t they complaining about the millions of dollars lost to fraud by the former Republican administration?
Posted by: Amy | January 26, 2009, 10:53 pm 10:53 pm
This will make you ill, Sally. It is estimated we lost 13 billion dollars to fraud in Iraq. And many whistleblowers who reported the loss were demoted or worse.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20430153/
Posted by: Amy | January 26, 2009, 11:00 pm 11:00 pm
I am sick of hearing all this Obama news on the TV. HE is a fraud!!!
This man is on the road to destroy America and the American people have blinders on.
With all this give away money who do you think is going to pay for it. Wait till 2010 if he is still in office taxes will go up at a high percentage
http://www.theobamafile.com
Posted by: Ken | January 27, 2009, 6:49 am 6:49 am
PRESIDENT OBAMA IS DOING A GREAT JOB TRYING TO TURN THIS COUNTRY AROUND. He shall be one of the BEST President of the United States of America. Look at all the trillions of dollars we spend to keep our military up, but we have people that are living on the street. We say that some people are just born to live on the street because it is there choice. Okay, that might be, but what about middle class people that are trying to decide should I buy gas or should I buy groceries. The Republicans has stuff their pockets long enough. Somebody need to give them a pair of scissors to cut a whole in the pockets and let the money start flowing for all the people. This is the time for unity. If you got it, share it with someone who does not have it.
Posted by: Lillie | January 27, 2009, 9:30 am 9:30 am
Amy, I think the “Truth” is just too much for Sally Sue. I think you lost her. I would hate to see her participate in a discussion where those with opposing views were not as sensitive and empathetic as you have been.
Posted by: bobj72 | January 27, 2009, 6:55 pm 6:55 pm
The government seems to have entered a new phase in recent years. All appropriations bills with no corresponding revenue bills or PAYGO reductions. Of course, with the current unemployment trends, there doesn’t seem to be many opportunities to tap new revenue left.
Posted by: jobseeker | February 4, 2009, 12:37 am 12:37 am
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
Miriam
http://www.craigslistguide.info
Posted by: Miriam | February 17, 2009, 9:39 am 9:39 am
I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my
first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I
will keep visiting this blog very often.
Miriam
http://www.craigslistguide.info
Posted by: Miriam | February 20, 2009, 5:57 am 5:57 am
Republicans will hate on Obama no matter what he does, so why should he bother trying to appease them? I think most senisible folks are just going to ignore the GOP from now on, because there is literally no pleasing them. Republicans are just a bunch of whining babies who never learned how to share or play nice – if they don’t get their way they just throw a big tantrum. The rest of the country is sick of their whining.
Posted by: Rod Johnson | March 23, 2009, 12:24 pm 12:24 pm
Ken – I agree. I think it’s crazy that the news media spends so much time covering the President. Clearly the news is biased towards showing things that people are interested in and want to know about. What’s up with that?
I wish the liberal media would tell the truth about Obama’s plans to socialize America by attempting to save the free market and bail out major corporations. Instead the liberal media confuses us with all their stories about how bailouts will be paid for with tax revenues, instead of borrowing from China, which is how we Republicans do things.
Posted by: Ben Forgash | March 23, 2009, 12:28 pm 12:28 pm
Why are Republicans so hateful towards Obama? They really need to be quiet and give the guy a chance already. If Obama fails, we all fail.
Posted by: Common Sense | March 23, 2009, 12:50 pm 12:50 pm
I wish Obama was really a socialist – instead he’s just going to spend all our money trying to bailout the capitalist fat cats and the rest of us are going to get the leftovers and scraps as usual. If he was a REAL socialist he would really do something for the people. Unfortunately, Obama is part of the same ruling class as Bush, and Clinton and Bush Sr and every other President – he’s going to save the elite and the middle class and the rest of us are going to get screwed like always. The only crime in America is being poor. The only class warfare in America is the war against the poor. Obama a socialist? Don’t make me laugh!
Posted by: Black Flag | March 23, 2009, 12:55 pm 12:55 pm
“hahah dont make me laugh about The Bush Tax cuts They were for the Wealthy Bush was relying on that GOOD OLE IDEALOGY OF TRICKLING DOWN NEWS-FLASH IT HAS NOT WORKED!”
Angie, grow up sweetie. the bush tax cuts did actually work (the banks being greedy with their wacky trades, i.e. credit default swaps, is what didnt work). The tax cuts worked for the many wealthy democrats as well as republicans. Remember the biggest receiver of doners from hedge funds was Obama. Remember George Soros runs hedge funds, making billions and then dontating to moveon.org and any democrat running for office.
Posted by: D | March 23, 2009, 1:02 pm 1:02 pm
“Why are Republicans so hateful towards Obama? They really need to be quiet and give the guy a chance already. If Obama fails, we all fail.”
Its not just republicans who dont trust Obama, anybody in the corporate world has no trust in Obama. Obama is making bad decisions and his spedning spree disgusts me (which was going to happen whenever a Dem got into office, be it in a recession or not).
Posted by: D | March 23, 2009, 1:18 pm 1:18 pm
Again, I ask and never yet have gotten an answer from the neocons: “Where were you during the Iraq war and the Bush Tax Cuts (for tax cheats to hide in Switzerland)? Where were all you who are breathing fire about high debts and high deficits during the presidency of George W. Bush? I didn’t see all this public alarm then….why not? What Obama is proposing is to fix the mess and he cant help it if his predecessor left him NO wiggle room. He is dealing with LONG DELAYED reforms that need to be done if we are to dig out of this recession and get the country on the road to independence from foreign oil and a sustainable roadmap for the future…YOU Republicans are the ones who ran up the huge public debt we have now…Obama is only spending a fraction of what you cons spent in five years of war and tax giveaways and sweetheart fascist crony no-bid contracts…So where is your fairness? When it comes to saving the country, you republicans are AGAINST that…but when it comes to destroying the country…you are ALL FOR THAT (why should we listen to your advice when you put our country into the ditch we are in?)
Posted by: JL | March 23, 2009, 6:06 pm 6:06 pm