Comments


  • Thanks Suzy
    I guess the USAToday is left-wing..lol

    October 6, 2009 at 3:21 p.m.

  • speaking of approval ratings, go here and click on the different Presidents's approval ratings during their terms. It's interesting.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/washingt...

    October 6, 2009 at 1:39 p.m.

  • Oh,I have my share of enemies..:-)
    Have a good one.

    October 6, 2009 at 1:36 p.m.

  • somebody has to mess with you Mike or you'd be bored! lmao

    October 6, 2009 at 1:28 p.m.

  • They calculate it by subtracting the number of people who Strongly Disapprove from the number of people who Strongly Approve. But now the rating on his JOB approval is around the 50% mark. And that's my point. Depending on what you want the poll to reflect is where you look.

    October 6, 2009 at 1:27 p.m.

  • Democrats and Republicans quote results from Gallup and Factcheckcom all the time...That's what counts.
    During the last election; politicians cited the results from Factcheck.com on a daily basis.

    You do know factcheckers and polling compainies operate on reputation...A lot of wrong facts or polling results,will drive them out of business.

    October 6, 2009 at 1:24 p.m.

  • Rasmussen uses a complex formula (it does lean right)that no other polling outfit uses...It was right on the last poll taken Nov 3,2008.

    9/29 Fox 50% approval
    9/20 NBC?Wall St. Jrl 51% approval
    9/19 CBS/Wall St. Jrl. 56% approval
    10/5 Gallup 50% approval

    every polling organization may define a likely voter slightly differently, or in some cases, more than slightly differently than the next polling organization.

    Why do conservatives call everything they don't agree with their point of view,liberal,bias, or wrong?:-)..I use an average of 10 polls.

    Keep in mind the poor and the age group 18-25 tend yo use cell phones;so they are not polled.

    October 6, 2009 at 1:17 p.m.

  • The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 30% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-seven percent (37%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -7 (see trends).

    While just 38% give the President good or excellent marks for handling the economy, most do not hold Obama responsible for the economic challenges facing the nation today.
    And we all know that Gallop and factcheck are left wing websites Mike...you know, just saying. lol

    October 6, 2009 at 12:49 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    October 4, 2009 at 11:56 p.m.

  • Legion357
    I see you are on your “holier than thou kick ;”this evening.

    You said” A working knowledge of the issues....well yeah, but is the only working knowledge the donkey knowledge?..Are you insinuating that you are open-minded? You need a mirror on your monitor….I don’t try to pretend that I don’t have a bias and I would also say that 95 % of the posters are very opinionated but most don’t try to hide their bias…Now, if you would go into the right-wing blogs and criticize those authors,then I would pay heed to your statement..You won’t because you agree with them…….I don’t believe anyone forces you to read or post on this blog…My avatar is so easy to ignore.

    I also said ,first you have to drown out the noise such as bringing in a subject that is completely off topic…Write a blog and you will probably get like-minded posters to agree with you.

    BTW There is nothing wrong with America's values..I have beeen married for 42 years and the so-called gay adgebda has never been a threat...If only the judgemntal could take care of their own problems,they would have time to meddle in others...That family values platform ,didn't work for the GOP.Why?

    Back to the football game..Out

    October 4, 2009 at 8:39 p.m.

  • A working knowledge of the issues....well yeah, but is the only working knowledge the donkey knowledge?

    Altons post summed all this up perfectly. A decay of values.

    I swear, I have not watched anything more disgusting than Barney Franks making his case that gender/ transsexual discrimination should be illegal.

    I do not care if you are a Republican or a Democrat, Barney Franks gay agenda bias is just wrong.

    Let his bill pass, let me ask each and everyone of you, if a co-worker is a male and has had half of the gender changing operations done, whether you are male of female, would you like to either..

    1. Be a male in a bathroom with a person wearing a dress, and most likely having breast, stand next to you at the urinal?

    2. If you are a female, would you be comfortable with a person that wears a dress and has breasts but also has a penis being in the restroom with you?

    As Alton said, it is a disgrace,I guess America will end up like the Roman Empire, A complete disregard for values and morals orchestrated by a small part of the population in order to be able to do whatever they think is right at the expense of everyone else, we have to be politically correct, even at our own peril.

    And the band played on..., or better yet Nero Fiddled while Rome burned.

    October 4, 2009 at 6:42 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    October 4, 2009 at 5:25 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    October 4, 2009 at 3:33 p.m.

  • OK,I'll accept that. If I may ask "which poster is your ex so I can juge her comments subjectively?"

    October 4, 2009 at 9:59 a.m.

  • I read in one of Mike's posts that Mr. Ocker is also the "famous" Bundy, One of the meanest posters ever to appear here. Plus if that's true shouldn't he be banned because of the VicAd's policy?
    "Banned members found creating additional accounts will be banned"
    I guess that Bundy wasn't banned he just went away on his own.

    October 4, 2009 at 8:38 a.m.

  • Hmmm! “Criticism of the previous president was made after a decision.” I got a chuckle out of that statement. What do you think is happening now with the decisions made on the stimulus package, health care reform and god forbid, cap and trade? These are all bad decisions/ideas that are being crammed down our throats in a not so bipartisan manner. And BTW where is all that stimulus money – what is he waiting for, the election next year?

    Obama is facing some major problems and a lot of people are concerned that he is making them worse. BTW the housing crisis and unemployment are really one and the same problem. A problem brought on by “affordable housing” and helped along by ACORN shaking down the banks to make these stupid loans. In addition the uncertainty caused by the threat of new taxes is stalling the economic recovery – no one will invest in this type of climate unless it is heavily subsidized by the government.

    An outdated electrical grid, uh….er, I guess you mean the “smart grid” so the consumption of electricity can be controlled and so we can use more heavily subsidized wind energy. When the subsidies go away so will wind energy – so will all green energy. I heard the speech by the CEO of Exxon where he said Cap and Trade is not an energy policy. He said it will make energy prices more variable and make it almost impossible for anyone to invest.

    And our poor educational system, how can we fix that? Let me guess here, I bet the solution is to expand the Dept of Education and, and yes, throw more money at the problem. Fortunately we have the Dept Education to think up “activities” for the children after they hear the President’s speech – I wonder how much that cost?

    This statement stumped me, “It took the 2006 congressional elections to force the hand of President Bush to get a new strategy for Iraq.” Are you talking about the “Surge”? Yeah, there was a lot of liberal support for that strategy. And BTW the cost of the Iraq was not included in the Obama budget – it was assumed to be over. And I don’t think a large fund was allocated for the Afghan War. That’s why there is this big pause about sending more troops – no money!!!

    October 4, 2009 at 8:30 a.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    October 4, 2009 at 2:43 a.m.

  • why don't you guys use the phone?

    October 4, 2009 at 12:08 a.m.

  • Oh Matt, how presumptious of you. I love my Country as much as anyone else does.

    October 3, 2009 at 9:45 p.m.

  • I'm not going to argue your points Victore. I really don't know that much about it, but I haven't seen a thing that said that the $800,000 was anything except a contribution. As to the rest, I have no idea.

    October 3, 2009 at 9:25 p.m.

  • Why so critical? I would respect the President more, if he stopped partying, and got down to business. There are higher priorities than making speeches and traveling. Rest of the country is hurting, it is time for the President to reduce the White House spending and stop using the taxpayer credit card. Also, he needs to stop trying to pass the buck. It is his call every day.

    October 3, 2009 at 6:44 p.m.

  • Suzy,

    Here is my clarification of my points on ACORN.

    They are 14 states conducting investigations into ACORN, alleging voter fraud violations.
    President Obama has along standing relationship with ACORN since the 80’s. Obama is a major supporter of that origination.

    My point is, there is a reason to believe that ACORN is involved in illegal activities/criminal and there was sufficient probable cause to conduct these on going investigation, so if you do a link analysis it might look like this. So when you have a presidential candidate making a payment of $800,000 to an origination that is none for hard nose tactics and bulling companies around to get what they want, (MONEY). Then you have congressman that had intended on doing an investigation, then decides not to do it. He stated, it came from some one above him that stop his probe into ACORN. So it could only be Pelosi, Reid or the President. This is Chicago politics at it’s best..


    October 3, 2009 at 6:41 p.m.

  • Matt, is this better?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...

    October 3, 2009 at 5:31 p.m.

  • Suzy,

    One more time President Obama "GAVE" ACORN $800,000. ACORN is corrupt, as you say this is not rocket science.

    October 3, 2009 at 5:24 p.m.

  • Suzy, for you.

    For two years, wonks like Ben Joravsky of the Chicago Reader and Tom Tresser of No Games Chicago have denounced Chicago's Olympics gambit as poorly conceived and wasteful. These stalwarts of the city's nerd opposition have couched their arguments in numbers, rules, and historical precedent, hoping to persuade the Games' supporters through tireless skepticism.

    Joravsky, Tresser, and their ilk have noted that the city of Chicago hasn't completed a significant construction project on time or on budget in recent memory. On that account, the predicted $3.3 billion cost of the Games can't be taken seriously. It doesn't help that the city's finances are a mess. Chicago's budget deficit has soared from $200 million six months ago to an estimated $500 million next year, and the city has been laying people off and forcing municipal employees to take unpaid furloughs. The Second City's recent parking meter boondoggle, in which it sold its meter stock to a private firm for $974 million less than its estimated value, shows it is incapable of executing a project on the scale of the Olympics, the nerds say.

    The anti-Olympians also point out that the Olympics won't bring nearly as much money to the region as Chicago 2016's supporters allege. Research from an independent consulting firm estimates the Olympics would bring $4.4 billion in economic benefits to the area, much less than the $22 billion figure Mayor Daley has been promoting. Daley and the bid committee also promised Chicago taxpayers would not be on the hook for covering cost overruns. Yet during a trip to pitch the Chicago bid to the IOC in Switzerland this last June, he agreed to sign a contract guaranteeing the city will cover any losses incurred by the Olympics.

    October 3, 2009 at 5:18 p.m.

  • Matt, I bet you could find the same info on other sites if you just look and quit believing everything that Beck says as gospel truth. He's got a few screws loose.

    Victore,

    It is not illegal to register voters. Obama didn't order ACORN to do anything illegal in exchange for the money.
    Where do people on the Republican side get their money to have the voter registration drives? Do they pull the money out of their , ummm, hats?

    October 3, 2009 at 5:18 p.m.

  • Suzy,

    Obama, gave ACORN $800.000 to register voters during his campaign, you missed the other comment, it was a fellow up to Mike’s comment regarding ACORN. It could possibly be illegal.

    October 3, 2009 at 5:01 p.m.

  • C&P's from Factcheck article....

    Now it’s turned odious again, with Republican senators calling czars unconstitutional and cable hosts like Beck and Sean Hannity characterizing them as shadowy under-the-table appointees used by Obama to dodge the usual approval processes. In fact, of the 32 czars Beck lists:

    ■Nine were confirmed by the Senate, including the director of national intelligence ("intelligence czar"), the chief performance officer ("government performance czar") and the deputy interior secretary ("California water czar").
    ■Eight more were not appointed by the president – the special advisor to the EPA overseeing its Great Lakes restoration plan ("Great Lakes czar") is EPA-appointed, for instance, and the assistant secretary for international affairs and special representative for border affairs ("border czar") is appointed by the secretary of homeland security.
    ■Fifteen of the "czarships" Beck lists, including seven that are in neither of the above categories, were created by previous administrations. (In some cases, as with the "economic czar," the actual title – in this case, chairman of the president’s economic recovery advisory board – is new, but there has been an official overseeing the area in past administrations. In others, as with the special envoy to Sudan, the position is old but the "czar" appellation is new.)
    ■In all, of the 32 positions in Beck’s list, only eight are Obama-appointed, unconfirmed, brand new czars.

    October 3, 2009 at 4:29 p.m.

  • Obama has 32 czars, he didn't appoint all of them. Read the links that Mike and I posted.

    Beck is just skewing things

    October 3, 2009 at 4:25 p.m.

  • 70% if the residents of Chicago did not want the Olympics, why? Chicago is facing money problems. It seems those residents understand problems and did not want to add anymore.

    October 3, 2009 at 3:33 p.m.

  • Victore had this to say....

    ...One last thought, if you pay ACORN $800,000, that's like putting out corn for the deer, then geting in a treestand and picking them off one at a time, some might call that illegal. So when and if and investigation does happen, even you might be surprised....

    I'm not even sure where you are going with this, but, it sounds like to your way of thinking, campaign contributions are all illegal...bribery of some kind? Lobbying is illegal too? or just when it is on the "other" side?

    October 3, 2009 at 3:09 p.m.

  • Slippery people at ACORN....... read more

    http://www.cdobs.com/archive/featured...

    October 3, 2009 at 3:03 p.m.

  • Mike have a great weekend.

    One last thought, if you pay ACORN $800,000, that's like putting out corn for the deer, then geting in a treestand and picking them off one at a time, some might call that illegal. So when and if and investigation does happen, even you might be surprised.

    October 3, 2009 at 2:40 p.m.

  • Mike,
    Before you make all of these off the wall comments please watch the program. The in-depth investigation really put the icing on the cake. This issue of ACORN is about trying to change democracy and turn the tide in their favor. It’s not about a bunch lose nuts in the middle of a war (backwater). When ole George ask President Obama about ACORN, the body language in his response told it all, it didn’t take a expert to figure he was lying about ACORN.

    Two years on the campaign trial and no one new anything about him other than his smooth talking attitude.

    Oh well, everybody that voted for him I truly hope they enjoy the magic carpet ride, because his star is no longer glowing in the dark. The Pres is from Chicago what more can one expect..

    October 3, 2009 at 2:27 p.m.

  • The progressive tax system has been through Republican and Democratic administrations....How is this the problem of ideology?...I said of the 2001 & 2003 tax cuts..."Let's see if it works"..It didn't the Republicans said Bush didn't cut spending but they rubber stamped everything.

    The rich will make it;we will take care of the poor ;it is the middle-class that takes the hit.

    October 3, 2009 at 2:23 p.m.

  • Penalize success, I guess that's the progressive vision for American. Does it make those not wealthy richer or just feel better about themselves!

    October 3, 2009 at 2:15 p.m.

  • I see the cold-war mentality and McCarthyism is alive and well in Victoria but little do they know that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Medicare are all components of socialism. Like all industrial nations our government has a socialist component to it…. Those with an attitude of “I've got mine” cannot see that.

    Conservatives like to take up for the rich saying that they pay the majority of the taxes to keep this country going, and they all reference an outdated chart(claiming it's only one available..lol) but that was debunked time after time during the debates… Trickle down just does not work. Cut the corporations taxes they will still outsource, cut back on the benefit packages to their employees, and then keep their wages stagnant.

    Based on an exhaustive analysis of tax records and census data, the study reinforced the sense that while Mr. Bush’s tax cuts reduced rates for people at every income level, they offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top — especially the top 1 percent of income earner

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/was...

    This is the reason they lost the election in 2006 in 20008…. People don't buy that argument.

    October 3, 2009 at 2:11 p.m.

  • It only goes to figure that if you make more, you SHOULD pay more. That's not rocket science. The only difference is that people on the lower end of the scale have to choose between food, medicine, clothes, healthcare, etc. The top income earners have to decide what fund they want to put their excess money in, or choose between a milti-million/billion dollar home or a million dollar home.
    The people who break their backs to help the top earners earn millions, don't get enough for their efforts.

    How about taking away the worker bees and see how the queens/kings fare? Do they really think that they are owed more than the ones who earn it for them?

    October 3, 2009 at 1:57 p.m.

  • Anyone can cut-and-paste an article then call themselves a genius and anyone that doesn't agree with them morons.

    October 3, 2009 at 1:44 p.m.

  • Victore said:
    "One thing about this President no one new anything about him before he got elected, it really looks like the skeletons are starting to appear."

    The two year campaign had about 21 debates and many were televised nationally, I am not surprised by any of the stances the president has taken....His campaign paid ACORN ~$800,000 for voter registration... The McCain camp brought that out,69 million didn't think that was important and they voted for Obama.

    Just because you did not pay attention does not make it a new revelation.

    October 3, 2009 at 1:42 p.m.

  • Let's see, almost 9 years of hammer the poop out of GW. Yes it started before the election.

    Poor little PBHO does much he can to not use the free market, capitalism and the Constitution. He gets haammered for 9 months and it's wha wha.

    Rememeber all the things said about GW and 911 and he was only in office for how long?

    This is mid stream media, msnbc, cnn, and all wha wha.

    October 3, 2009 at 1:41 p.m.

  • Realizing the probable futility of trying to educate morons (you know who you are), I will give this another try. According to the IRS, for Tax Year 2006 (the latest available), the top 1% of taxpayers by reported Adjusted Gross Income paid 39.9% of income taxes.
    The top 5% paid 60.1%.
    The top 10% paid 70.8%.
    The top 25% paid 86.3%.

    When 1% of the taxpayers account for almost two-fifths of all taxes paid and one-fourth of the taxpayers account for almost 90% of the taxes paid, how can anyone not resident in an institution for the mentally retarded argue that they are not paying their fair share? In fact, here is a suggestion for those who feel that way. There are any number of Socialist Workers' Paradises on this planet, most of which would welcome someone with your level of credulity. Please pick one and go.

    My country was founded as a capitalistic republic, and I like it just the way it is. If you don't, leave.

    October 3, 2009 at 1:36 p.m.

  • Victore
    ACORN should be investigated but it is not nearly as corrupt as Erik’s Princes former company Backwater… That company is being reviewed for rape, dealing in under age prostitution, fraud and other inpropriorites but because they are large donors to the RNC, Fox will not give them equal coverage. I guess you know that George W. Bush's administration used ACORN.

    What Obama did say “George, this is not the biggest issue facing the country. It's not something I'm paying a lot of attention to.” And he is correct.

    October 3, 2009 at 1:35 p.m.

  • I’m sure this off topic, but oh well. Fox News special on ACORN, done an outstanding job of reporting, and very well put together. The sad part of it all is, ACORN is one of the most corrupt originations in this country, and the President is dead in the middle of it. What really got my attention was the President comment to ABC (GEORGE), when he was ask about ACORN and stated he was not paying any attention to ACORN. Then commented he didn’t know ACORN was receiving tax dollars, a total bold face lie, he has been involved with ACORN since the 80’s. And everyone is sad because of the criticism of President Obama. One thing about this President no one new anything about him before he got elected, it really looks like the skeletons are starting to appear. Video is a great tool, “a picture is worth a thousand words.”

    October 3, 2009 at 1:24 p.m.

  • I did not start the argument on-line,you mentioned my name in this blog, without provocation.... I've told you before just ignore my avatar(easy to do) because I will not engage in childish ad hominem attacks... That's for schoolchildren.. You call it a debate.

    October 3, 2009 at 12:58 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    October 3, 2009 at 12:42 p.m.

  • edpost,

    taxes are not the enemy. Taxes are what makes this Country run and gives us the comfort that we expect. What is the enemy is the unfair, and unbalanced way that the American people are taxed. The top 5% have 95% of the wealth (this may have changed since that came out), yet they have the lowest tax load per dollar earned. There is something wrong with that picture.
    The working people (middle and lower class) should have a bigger piece of that pie, and that is the only way that things will get better in this Country.
    If you go back in history, the strongest periods were when the middle and lower class gained in wealth. They are the strongest consumers. The wealthiest hide their money overseas so they are not taxed, and use every loophole they can find, and some they can't find, to get out of paying their fair share of taxes. We need people that pay taxes to make this Country run.

    October 3, 2009 at 12:33 p.m.

  • edpost
    That was just a metaphor because I have been retired for seven years.

    What's the difference if your health insurance rates go up by $40 a month or taxes go up by the same amount?

    October 3, 2009 at 11:52 a.m.

  • Edpost
    In this progressive tax system that we have, I would be thrilled to be in a 50% bracket, because I would be making a lot of money. The president is a politician and he knows that if his administration raises the lower bracket from 25% -50% it would doom him and his party for a long ,long time.,

    I never said I was happy with Czars, but as I told another poster, since this has been around for a long, long, time, I would not be disappointed if legislation was created to abandon the Czars for this president and all future presidents. To abandon it now, reeks of partisan outrage.

    I have more confidence in the American people but they can see the disparity between CEO pay and the working class, the diminishing benefits packages, and the stagnant wages. I think the American people want to work and it shows where you have 6,000 people lining up for 50 jobs.

    October 3, 2009 at 11:37 a.m.

  • JD
    You say he is hell-bent in a government regulated healthcare system... the Senate Finance Committee's bill does not have a public option. That's the only one being discussed today. It is loaded with goodies for the health insurance companies.

    Yes, unemployment went from 9.7%-9.8& yesterday, that is a legitimate worry..Any solutions?

    They are saying that if we can lower the cost of health care; it will help the bottom line such as the trade and fiscal deficit….. You are probably right it will probably take hiring more bureaucrats to manage the system but that will all be included in the CBO estimates.

    I continue to ask, where would we have been if we did not have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment insurance in place when the economy crashed last September? How many firemen, teachers, and policemen would have been laid off? What if the president would have just sat on his hands, hoping the economy would turn around on its own?...Or this just a one-way street?

    Good luck in 2012...If the president maintains his 56% approval people like Sarah Palin,Mike Huckabee,Pawlenty,or Romney won't get close..IMO

    October 3, 2009 at 11:24 a.m.

  • Let's add this too

    http://www.factcheck.org/UploadedFile...

    October 3, 2009 at 11:10 a.m.

  • Edpost
    Saying no BS, staright talk, assumes that you have all the answers, and whatever I say will not amount to much because your mind is made up.

    Any serious person would know that the term Czar" is media lingo, not an official title. But our research shows that George Bush’s administration had more "czars" than the Obama administration.

    http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/czar...

    I have never complained about any CZARS, I did ask why Bush needed a War Czar since he had the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
    Do I think all 8,000 people working in the Obama administration need to be confirmed by the Senate, or just high-level appointees?

    All those guilt by association people you mention is yesterday's news because 69 million people have already decided the campaign is over.

    I have already written a blog about the CZARS and all the myths and scaremongering that went along with the right wing criticism. All my answers are in that blog.

    October 3, 2009 at 11:03 a.m.

  • If I read right, President Obama only appointed 8 czars. Czars have been around for years before Obama. It's just a term used in place of the longer names.
    President Obama is not a minion of Reverend Wright, no more than I am a minion of my past acquaintances. I have my own mind and set of values, and so does he. Those values were instilled in him from his mom and grandmother. Before you ask why he remained in a church that he did not agree with, only he can answer that and I am in no place to judge that.

    JD.

    ...Where were you when Bush was in office and the Democrats were constantly attacking him....

    I didn't like some of the things that were going on, but I never applauded and laughed with glee when something went wrong for him. I thought he was ignorant, but waited to form that opinion after his many years of screw-ups. His tax cuts angered me more than anything. He plainly did not understand the basics of economics. You know, when more money is going out, you don't cut what is coming in.

    October 3, 2009 at 10:52 a.m.

  • Matt
    I laugh every time you say you are a viable candidate for public office.... I have some your racial statements you made as Bundy and Matt, not to mention all the treats( saying I have a concealed weapon permit)....What serious voter would vote for someone who has a daily tirade in a public on- line- forum. Dream on,a man with so much baggage criticizing me, is a badge of honor.

    Unless bs and vainest lead to votes ;you don't stand a chance.

    October 3, 2009 at 10:42 a.m.

  • Suzy: "I wonder what it is going to take to get people to understand that all of this party arguing is not productive".

    Where were you when Bush was in office and the Democrats were constantly attacking him.

    There is no way I can support a man, I feel is not qualified to be president or who has a socialist leaning that I totally disagree with, just for the sake of harmony!

    It was a mistake electing Obama. That is becoming more and more evident everyday. The man is hellbent on passing a government regulated healthcare system that will do way more harm than good for the majority of US citizens and he will say anything to make it happen. (i.e. after yesterdays revelation that unemployment has risen again, today he states that a government run healthcare system will fix that too. What he is talking about is adding more jobs to the government payroll and big brother will just keep getting bigger and bigger.

    We need change alright but we will have to wait until 2012 to effect it.

    October 3, 2009 at 10:33 a.m.

  • Victore said
    “You have certainly taken penalty of shots at George.”

    I don't back away from that and every president of the United States will get his share criticism. I continue to say that President President George W. Bush was incompetent.

    I disagreed with President Bush and his Iraq war policy… I never complained about his vacations, trips abroad, or even his fiscal policies. He won the election he gets to govern. I didn't have a daily tirade over trivial matters.

    As I have said many times before, you can get 10 economists in one room; ask them a question, you might get ten different answers. By all means question the fiscal policies but state your reasons as to why you disagree. About 52% think we should get out the Afghanistan; there is room for an opposing view. Like every other president before him, Barack Obama will make some mistakes, and his opponents have every right to call him on it. That is not what’s happening. It starts with the Drudge Report; Newsmax, flows to talk radio for a little hyperbole and then goes on Fox News for maximum effect. It's called a shotgun effect; throw out a lot of bs, and let the recipient's sort it all out...The viewers/listeners seldom do.

    October 3, 2009 at 10:25 a.m.

  • I wonder what it is going to take to get people to understand that all of this party arguing is not productive. It causes nothing but harm or, worse yet, inactivity on the important issues.
    We have some of the greatest minds in the world, but with all of this ignorant party politics, it really doesn't matter. Nothing is getting done and the world is laughing at us.

    October 3, 2009 at 10:16 a.m.

  • Matt, it is wrong on both sides.

    October 3, 2009 at 10:05 a.m.

  • It just strikes me as odd that any American can cheer when America loses something. This was not about President Obama, but the Olympics. Didn't President Bush say that he thought Chicago would be a great place for the Olympics to be?
    Politics is getting more and more cutthroat, to the point of being rabid. People don't care about the Country anymore, just their political party. That single aspect is going to be what makes America fall.

    October 3, 2009 at 10:03 a.m.

  • The people that are jumping up and down, with high fives all around because Chicago lost their bid to host the 2016 Olympics; remind me of children in the schoolyard yelling " na-na-na-na-poo-poo” because someone fell off the swing set.... It was so funny seeing Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck lead the cheers for their disciples....It is such a small issue.

    I am not going to pretend that I know the reason the president was persuaded to go to Copenhagen. The initial plans had Michelle Obama and Oprah representing the city of Chicago. Was the president persuaded by his staff, Mayor Daley, or Oprah? I happen to think that his staff persuaded him to go, that way he could meet with General McCrystal to discuss the Afghanistan- Pakistan strategy. Killing two birds with one stone…. Since Chicago lost their bid, he would have been criticized for not going...I think people jump on an issue like this because they don't have enough knowledge of the really big issues this country has.

    You said the president's personal approval ratings have gone down but that is old news.. True, his approval went down after the August recess but it currently at 54% at Gallup up from 50%. I believe even Fox has him at 56%. That's exactly my point; conservatives seem to think that every single person in United States thinks like they do or they are wrong or immoral. If they dislike something then it is fairly obvious that the rest of country must feel that way.

    I have compared the complaints, mockery, and outrage against the eight years of President George W. Bush and the nine months of President Obama. There were rallies against the Iraq but they were not given the media coverage. MSNBC or CNN did not devote a whole day to cover the protest march nor did they sponsor or lead them in cheers.They did cover the Cindy Sheehan rally. After nine months President Bush had a high approval rating and the country was pretty much united. President Obama has received 400% more death threats in this short term than Bush did for eight years…. According to the Secret Service.

    October 3, 2009 at 9:53 a.m.

  • Victore

    he hasn't been sitting on his hands for 9 months. Go to:
    politifact.com
    and look under "Tracking Obama's Promises"

    He's done more in the first 9 mos. than most past President's.

    How many "hours" did he take out of his busy days to go to Copenhagen? I think I heard 18?

    October 3, 2009 at 9:44 a.m.

  • Suzy,

    With all due respect here, BO went to Denmark for him self not for the country. The main point I was trying to make the president needs to find some direction in being a leader, and get his priorities in order, there are most certainly more important issues of great importance’s than making his pitch for the Olympics, and he didn’t even make the first round cut. Seeing his face on the tube is really getting old, every day is just plan pathetic. His job approval continues to fall. (IMO) it is because of the like of leadership skills. This showboating that he does really needs to stop, he has an office it’s time for him to start working..

    October 2, 2009 at 10:35 p.m.

  • Mike, you are so right. If it wasn't so serious, it would be comical. Conservatives are willing to let America crash and burn before they help President Obama try and fix what is wrong with America. Their main, and only, objection is to see President Obama fail, not understanding that if President Obama fails, all of America fails, because the World will see our division and take advantage of it.
    No Country as divided as ours is right now, can remain strong for very long.
    Hmmmm, it feels like they are scared to death that he will get in for two terms and are putting America at risk to make sure that doesn't happen. So, does that mean they are more worried about power or keeping America strong?

    October 2, 2009 at 8:39 p.m.

  • Victore

    What is wrong with President Obama trying to get the Olympics to come to America? The olympics creates a lot of jobs and brings money in from around the world. Do you as an American, not want that to happen?
    He is not the only leader of a Country that was in Denmark to make a pitch for their Country.
    I applaud his willingness to do what he could to try and bring the games home here to America.

    October 2, 2009 at 8:29 p.m.

  • Mike,

    I’m really sorry that you feel the way you do. It’s not 1992 all over again, although a good point, but wild Bill was a likable fellow, at least there was no racism within your blog.

    If you don’t mind try and equate all the criticism by dems against Bush, maybe fair and balanced, who knows. You have certainly taken penalty of shots at George.

    One thing about Texas, the recession has not been as bad as other states. We do have nine billion in reserve for that rainy day. But I do believe if health care passes it will bankrupt a lot of states including Texas, based on the information that the governor has provided. Perry is not doing to bad of a job. Oh, there has been a lot of tort reform, I might add.

    The comments of Allen Grayson is nothing more than double standards that is going on within the democratic party, Pelosi has made that very clear with her ridiculous comments about SF in the 70’s, she is such an idiot, MG if it was not for the plastic surgery that woman couldn’t stand up, of course (IMO).

    If you want to continue to whine about the right go ahead. But after Obama wasted all of those tax dollars to fly his butt over to Denmark in order to make a pitch for the Olympics, and then have it in Chicago. What a pathetic display of leadership from this President. He is not the Mayor of Chicago. MG if anyone reads anything about Chicago, given its history of corruption. “Wow,” he thinks he is still working the streets of Chicago as a community organizer. Please, come on give me a break..

    October 2, 2009 at 8:01 p.m.