• JBJ.

    Stop pulling my leg. How can you say that you never knew Fox News exist, when you have people like Sean Hannity on there. That’s like telling me that the Chicago Bull never existed but knowing who si Michael Jordan.


    You have comment history. Look it up

    November 9, 2010 at 6:46 a.m.

  • Some accounting gibberish........

    "Unless you can accurately identify all the expenditures insurance companies use that eventually reduces their profit; the percentage of profit is useless...i.e. Did they buy back their stock, did they increase their dividend payouts, will December's low profit will show up as a gain in the following month?..."

    Dividends and stock buy backs have no effect on profits or losses......dividends are just the distribution of profits and stock buy backs are just converting cash into equity it has no effect on on the profit and loss statement.

    And then finally the percentage of premiums paid out in claims.......


    Again where do you get this crap ....uh..... I mean, information?????

    November 8, 2010 at 9:39 a.m.

  • Legion357 it just using the talking points of the right when he said "Just because a company post earnings doesn't explain how much they spent to make there earnings, the % of profit is a much better picture of who makes the most money.". That's the same talking point they use when defending the oil companies..... Whether Health Insurance companies are 1st in profits or 50th is not that important, the only figure that should be important, is percentage of claims paid.... Unless you can accurately identify all the expenditures insurance companies use that eventually reduces their profit; the percentage of profit is useless...i.e. Did they buy back their stock, did they increase their dividend payouts, will December's low profit will show up as a gain in the following month?...Since this new law will require insurance companies to pay out ~ 80% of their premiums to Health Care claims; it should not be difficult to assume that they will continue paying out less until absolutely necessary.

    According to 2009 reports filed with the Security and Exchange Commission -- Wellpoint,United Health Group,Cigna Corp.,Aetna, and Humana posted combined profits of $12.2 billion, a 56% increase over calendar year 2008; yet they raised their prices by a great margin....

    I stand by my statement that as long we don't do anything about our lifestyle the private sector insurance companies only have two re-courses; drop coverage or raise prices..... That's the reason Health Care reform was necessary.

    November 8, 2010 at 8:55 a.m.

  • Distortions will not be left to stand.

    jbj, left a September 5,2010 link from Policitco meant to back up his distortion but according to the Politico November 3, 2010 analysis:

    Most of the House Democrats who opposed health care legislation lost anyway on Tuesday.

    Conservative Democrats agonized -- and faced intense pressure from leadership -- on two votes on the passage of the health care overhaul.

    By my colleage Byron Tau's count, 20 of the "no" voters lost Tuesday. Twelve won, while six didn't seek reelection. Parker Griffith, who switched parties, lost his primary anyway.
    As we wrote this morning, yesterday's wave was basically indiscriminate.

    Full list of results for Democrats who opposed the health care bill is after the jump.

    UPDATE: There were two major votes on the health care reform bill. The November vote had 39 "No" Democratic votes, the March vote had 34 Democratic "No" votes. After the jump, we have separated the votes into two lists.

    Of the 8 Democrats who switched their votes from "no" to "yes" between November and March, 5 lost, 1 won, and 2 retired. 5 Democrats switched their vote from "yes" to "no" and 2 won, 2 lost and one retired.

    November 8, 2010 at 8:35 a.m.

  • Unless you are saying CNN is a shortwave radio broadcast, in that case you are right.

    November 7, 2010 at 8:30 p.m.

  • Rebecca, sorry, but my data was NOT from Fox news, try CNN. Look a little closer.

    November 7, 2010 at 8:29 p.m.

  • born2, I am sure there are some who sat home on both sides.

    November 7, 2010 at 8:01 p.m.

  • jbj,

    You are forgetting about those who voted for Obama the first time who wanted the change that he promised, that chose to sit home this time. They did not flip and vote Republican. They chose to send Obama a message, not support the Republican ideas. Look at the entire picture and not just one small part of it.

    November 7, 2010 at 7:32 p.m.

  • Here is a little info on who ran on their health care vote and who didn't.

    November 7, 2010 at 7:18 p.m.

  • born2. let me assure you that the Republicans were voting NO because of request from home. On threat of not being voted back in they voted NO. I know because I was one of those calling and sometimes I could not get through. We rang those phones off the wall. DO NOT VOTE TO TAKE OVER HEALTHCARE. They listened, and you saw the rest of the story last Tues. evening. They agree it is a sorry piece of legislation and they ran on fixing it. How many democrats ran on keeping it?

    I can tell you that I called AARP and others who supported this bill and I started doing this while AARP was still lying about not supporting it.

    There were plenty of people in favor of what Obama wants to do, but when the independents saw the plan and how it is affecting businesses and jobs, they jumped ship. If the democrats won't listen now, there will be another flush in 2012.

    Please don't get the idea that my first ideas to think conservatively came from Fox. People watch what they believe, not usually the other way around unless a person cannot think for him or herself.

    November 7, 2010 at 7:03 p.m.

  • Yeah, sorry Legion, I'm gonna have to wait until my favorite short-wave radio program airs this evening. I'll have to call them and see what statistics they recommend. Then, I can know my favorite version of the truth. I'm that 14% that thinks FOX is too liberal. =P

    Je plaisantais!

    November 7, 2010 at 5:47 p.m.

  • Just because a company post earnings doesn't explain how much they spent to make there earnings, the % of profit is a much better picture of who makes the most money.

    November 7, 2010 at 5:38 p.m.

  • Insurance is up to # 22, take a look at the list....

    Unless you think CNN is a biased source.

    November 7, 2010 at 5:34 p.m.

  • I posted when the Health care bill was being debated months ago, what where the most profitable businesses in the US.

    Health insurance company s where way down the list. if I remember right, medial device manufacturers where # 4, pharmaceuticals # 12 or so and medical insurance company s #24. See if I can find it again...

    November 7, 2010 at 5:27 p.m.

  • And thus the downfall of America...

    November 7, 2010 at 5:19 p.m.

  • They had Republican input. Many of the provisions were the brainchild of Republicans, but when it came time to vote, Republicans knew that it would help them politically to pretend that they didn't agree with anything and to just vote NO. They could not let something go through that the people liked and trusted, that the Democrats could take credit for, so they set about to vilify every detail of the bill. It worked too, and they intend to play it through to 2012. They want President Obama out and they see this as their best way to accomplish that.
    If they let President Obama carry through on his promises to the people who voted him into office, they know they don't stand a chance in hell of getting elected.

    November 7, 2010 at 5:11 p.m.

  • born2, we could have had all the changes we are seeing now, and it would not have angered the voters and caused so many democrats to lose their seats. We also could have found a way to do this without having to get a 4 year head start on funding it before it took effect. They did not want the Republican input. They had to have all or none.

    November 7, 2010 at 4:54 p.m.

  • jbj,

    No kind of changes would have accured if this bill wouldn't have passed. It brought it to the forefront and now, both sides will have to settle for "something", because the people who need these changes will not allow anything else.
    I know what you mean about the hospitals charging too much when a person has insurance. They are trying to recoup some of the losses due to indegent care which, by the way, should improve once everyone has their own insurance.
    Insurances "allow" a certain charge for things. One time my son had his ear cleaned out in the doctors office and they charged our insurance company over $100 + supplies + office call. We called the insurance company to complain and they said it was perfectly alright because they considered that as surgery. Take a syringe full of water and squirt it in the ear and it is surgery?
    The private pay is the actual expense, I think, but not sure.

    November 7, 2010 at 1:12 p.m.

  • born2, I think they should have come up with some rules for insurance companies long ago. An independent contractor I use has had a terrible time getting insurance. She was mis diagnosed as having a heart condition because she was nervous in the doctor's office and her heart beat faster. When she got a kidney stone, they told her it was female problems. Then she moved and had to get her own insurance. No one wanted to cover a 38 year old woman with the history she had, even if it was not accurate. This is only one of the many examples of insurance abuse I have seen. So I am one who agrees strongly that insurance needed some guidelines.

    A relative went to pick up his adult daughter at the hospital after she had an appendectomy. I think the bill was $21,000. (she had to stay a day or so longer because of pain) When he said she had no insurance, they told him if he would pay $2800 they would call it even.

    What is going on here? Are hospitals charging insurance companies more than they should or are they just trying to get as much as they can when it is private pay?

    No, I agree that there are some big problems. But I am not sure we are addressing what needs to be addressed in the health care bill. And everyone knows that older people get sick more than younger ones. Why take money from Medicare? Because they can, like they did with social security?

    November 7, 2010 at 12:53 p.m.

  • jbj,

    born2, you really don't understand Republicans very well. Kind of like me saying Liberals don't like America or that they want the country to be broke.

    I understand what I've seen coming out of Washington when the Republicas were in charge since Reagan. Republicans in office always cater to big business over the average American people. It's that darn trickle down theory they seem to embrace. It doesn't work, has been proven that it doesn't work, but they still keep scratching the backs of those that keep them in office, the health and well being of the American public be damned.

    November 7, 2010 at 10:15 a.m.

  • I guess if there was some other way of reighning in a business' exploitation of the American public, then this healthcare bill wouldn't be necessary. Easy access to healthcare should be a right that is available to everyone on an equal basis, but it turned into a luxury and only easily available to the young and healthy. It's not right when a business can determine who gets to live, who gets to keep their homes if they get sick.
    Personally, I would have rather seen a form of the single-payer system. I do not like parts of this bill either.

    November 7, 2010 at 10:09 a.m.

  • rollinstone, this bill will explode the federal budget the way no entitlement ever has, will hurt our health care system, will destroy the insurance industry, and has not only put off good health reform for years, it has destroyed the careers of some good Democrats.

    November 7, 2010 at 8:01 a.m.

  • born2, you really don't understand Republicans very well. Kind of like me saying Liberals don't like America or that they want the country to be broke.

    This bill we passed is a long way around getting to what will work for sick people. It did not have much to do with health or care, or lowering costs as we are seeing now.

    Good and bad people exist in both parties. Both make mistakes. It is difficult for the parties to work together because not only are the way of getting to their goals very different, the goals are very different.

    November 7, 2010 at 7:52 a.m.

  • The cost of Obamacare will explode the federal budget the way every entitlement does. No one can argue with the "intent" of an entitlement, it's the cost.

    If it destroys the country financially what good is that? Trying to make a good or service free is the most costly thing you can do, it is the road to perdition.

    November 7, 2010 at 7:33 a.m.

  • jbj,

    This bill was never meant to be the finished product. Everyone said that it was just important to get it passed in that small window of opportunity that they had, and then fix it later.
    The Republicans were never going to do anything about healthcare, and we all know that. They were never going to agree on anything. Sick people are not their priority.
    It's time to start fixing it now, and if both parties will work together on this, they will be able to accomplish many things, but somehow I don't think that is going to happen. Both sides are too muleheaded and power-hungry. Neither side wants the other side to get credit for something that the American people like.

    November 6, 2010 at 11:14 p.m.

  • born2, I didn't mean to imply that I don't think we need a health care reform bill, we certainly do and most people agree. They just don't like so many things about this one we passed. Most people want their kids covered if they can't get their own insurance, most agree that pre existing conditions should be covered and no caps. People who lose their jobs certainly do need coverage. I think we can work with this one, but not everyone agrees.

    I am not going to go into the things I would remove from this bill, I am sure you have heard it. But here are some things that I see that need to be worked on. We had a promise that we can keep our insurance and our doctors, I am not sure this is going to happen. If big companies shuck their health care because of higher costs and it leaves people with something they don't want, it is not a good thing. I want a plan Congress does not want to opt out of, and something they can be proud they passed. It seems like with what we have now, Congress and unions do not want to be part of. Something is not right.

    When we have those things addressed, I think we will make some progress.

    November 6, 2010 at 9:45 p.m.

  • This is pretty much "the nutshell"


    Just as many Americans do want some kind of healthcare bill. The Republicans better be very careful what they try to repeal. Those young voters and minorities, that didn't bother to vote this time, want many provisions that they have now. If they lose all of that, they will be back to vote in 2012.
    The young people, and their parents, want the option to keep them on their insurance until they are 26. So many want the pre-exising condition part, and they do not want to lose insurance if they lose their jobs. They do not want to be dropped from insurance if they get sick. If the Republicans take that away from those who desparetely need those things, they will lose in 2012.

    November 6, 2010 at 8:45 p.m.

  • oh you may be right about john ensign. I did't pay much attention if it was on. I guess a President entertaining an aide at work made me a little immune.

    November 6, 2010 at 8:27 p.m.

  • Mike, of course we worry about cap and trade. Health care died several times.

    November 6, 2010 at 8:14 p.m.

  • Mike

    Tax cuts are not going to fix everything. But an unstable business environment and threat of higher taxes with legislation like health care and cap and trade do not increase the job market. They have a dramatic opposite effect.

    November 6, 2010 at 8:10 p.m.

  • Mike you can say anything you want about health care, find any polls you like, but many voters don't want it and voted for those who promised to try to revise or repeal it. I stated that here and I believe that the election backs that up. If you choose to spin it any other way, that is ok with me. You are in good company, but there will be another flush in 2012 if Democrats continue to ignore the will of a majority of voters.

    November 6, 2010 at 7:57 p.m.

  • It's stupid to talk about doing anything with taxes when our deficits are near two trillion dollars a year - it's the spending stupid. We need to cut spending. Personally I don't give a damn about the polls, because unless we cut spending and get our fiscal house in order we are headed for much bigger trouble.

    And somehow something tells me throwing more money out of a Keynesian piloted helicopter is not the solution. We have had at least a decade or more of misallocated investment in a housing bubble. A lot of businesses and industries were build to supply this bubble and now they are idle or at reduced capacity. It will take some time and a "steady hand" to work our way out of this. Knee jerks from the government and the fed just make it worse IMO.

    November 6, 2010 at 2:17 p.m.

  • Mike, it has been a long time since I was in college, I did study supply-side economics, you maybe right, I said in part it work with Kennedy, Ragan used it during his recession, although it didn’t have the success they hoped for, but there was big stock market gains until the 87 mini crash.

    November 6, 2010 at 1:32 p.m.

  • I disagree with your argument, you stated with a comment, that the 600 billion the fed threw at the economy was the reason for the stock market jump, it was printed monopoly money backed up by treasury bonds, which is the reason Obama is overseas trying to sell it. The stock market jumped because they know of two years of stability in congress and tax cuts on the horizon “Bush tax cuts”…

    As far as the stimulus, according to Obama’s theory on redistribution of wealth, he would have better off writing us all a check for a million bucks, which would have stimulated the economy, which may sound ridiculous, but it would have worked a hell of lot better than what he did with it…

    There is no solid proof the stimulus has worked, the government does not buy “JOBS”… The economy is not showing that is has worked.

    You know it and I know it, Obama’s priorities were wrong, he should jumped on the economy he’s first day in office, he was to dang busy bailing-out banks and GM, and part of that was Bush’s fault with-out a doubt. Instead he jumped on he’s agenda “healthcare” on and on… He did not have people qualified to deal with economy, if you say that’s not true. Why would he have not re-aliened his priorities, if these people were so qualified??

    November 6, 2010 at 1:23 p.m.

  • Facts not fiction

    Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

    November 6, 2010 at 12:57 p.m.

  • Rebecca

    You may not have noticed but I've tried to post references whenever there might be some controversy.... People can dispute those references with links of their own.

    I've been hearing the gloom and doom predictions since January 20,2009 but I continue to see slow continued growth... I pay very little attention to it because we've been through many, many financial crisis and will probably forgo a few more... Where were all those prognosticators prior to the financial collapse?

    Partisan news outlets are like reality shows; a lot of people say to they are repulsive but they get great ratings... Advertisers' love them.

    Truth always matters and it usually prevails, but sometimes we are forced to go through the preliminaries

    November 6, 2010 at 12:52 p.m.

  • Facts ,not bias personal opinions

    They will point to continued high unemployment rates and sluggish GDP figures to support their assertion that Congress shouldn't have approved the spending package and that voters should oust any lawmaker who supported it.

    It was a weak argument before, and it's even weaker now. Centrist Republicans and Democrats who ignored threats from extremists and focused on the economic health of the country should, of course, be asked to justify their decisions during the campaign. But they should not shy away from what they did, nor should voters punish them based on the unfounded assertions of tea party activists. A new analysis published Tuesday by Princeton economics professor Alan Blinder and Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi states unequivocally that the stimulus averted another depression. They do not support another round of stimulus measures like the last one, but they do support continued, limited deficit spending for such items as jobless benefits. As is, the total cost of all recovery measures, plus recession-related declines in federal revenue, will be around $2.35 trillion. The figure would have been higher had we done nothing.

    "We find that its effects on real GDP, jobs, and inflation are huge, and probably averted what could have been called Great Depression 2.0. For example, we estimate that, without the government's response, GDP in 2010 would be about 6½% lower, payroll employment would be less by some 8½ million jobs, and the nation would now be experiencing deflation." Their figures indicate that we would be suffering an unemployment rate of 16.3 percent by next year, and 15 percent by 2012 had no stimulus been passed. (We're projected to have 9.8 percent unemployment next year and 8.3 percent in 2012.)

    The stimulus worked. Period.
    9:51 AM Wed, Jul 28, 2010 | Permalink
    Tod Robberson / Editorial Writer ...Dallas morning News

    November 6, 2010 at 12:34 p.m.

  • People seem to confuse political opinion and gossip with news. It's very sad that news organizations focus on political opinion. I don't care who is perceived as doing it MORE. It's sick. It's almost like there is a desire to divide people and keep them from understanding. "Us vs them" and truth or humanity do not matter.

    What Pilot said resonates with me! I honestly and truly think (fear) that way. I hope he was serious or I am going to be embarrassed, as usual. It won't be the first, it won't be the last. =D

    November 6, 2010 at 12:26 p.m.

  • Supply-Side economics has it pros and cons, but based on some of theories is what Obama should have used. Because you throw money at a recession and expect it too work, it never has. Obama just didn’t have the right people in place, they choose to use stimulus funds and throw funds around his democratic base and call it a crisis or emergence, that is where he failed miserably, it was agenda driven, and due to the lack of experience.

    Kennedy used Supply-Side economics and it worked for the most part, that was done by cutting taxes and spending. Although inflation can be a problem the fed would have to raise the rates. That was then and this is now…

    November 6, 2010 at 12:10 p.m.

  • LOL... I agree and I can only name a handful who have come back and said those three dreadful words" I was wrong." .. It just not in their vocabulary.

    I thought a commentator had a good idea yesterday.... He said the GOP has promoted their slogan for 30 years of " smaller government-less taxes" he thought the democrats need to get one of their own... Perhaps " hope and opportunity."........ He said everyone wants less taxes but if you ask them if they want less services, you will get a different answer.... Sure, it sounds good to want to reduce government but can you get the majority consensus ,on what needs to be cut?..The GOP has capitalized on this simplicity for years. No one challenges them.

    November 6, 2010 at 11:55 a.m.

  • It just goes to show that MSNBC is more fair and balanced than FOX, and is way more ethical.

    November 6, 2010 at 11:33 a.m.

  • Mike,

    I've learned when people don't respond to a comment, it's because they have no defense against it. What they do throw back at you, is just a smoke screen designed to keep the conversation moving in their direction.

    November 6, 2010 at 11:30 a.m.

  • jbj

    Fox News dominates cable news not network news such a NBC,ABC, and CBS because they're free and their viewership is about 5 to million a day.... I give Fox News their kudos because their cable shows dominate... I also know that their viewers like the one sided version.

    Here is the difference between MSNBC and Fox....MSNBC, mostly liberal commentators can not contribute to political candidates and no one running for a political office is allowed to host a show... I think it's superficial policy...MSNBC does not have any clout with current White House; in fact presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs chided them by calling them the professional left... They do get some favorable interviews with the president..... In a month or so, representatives Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters will be tried for unethical practices....MSNBC will cover the stories and not try to sugarcoat them ,just because they are liberal democrats.... How many times has Fox covered the John Ensign scandal?

    I remember about 2 or 3 years ago, a poll stated that 50% of Fox viewers thought that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11... I wonder why that is?

    November 6, 2010 at 11:27 a.m.

  • jbj

    I know is the way it's a waste of the 10 minutes I am taking to write this post because you will just dismiss the source material I provide because you heard it on Fox and that's it. I just want the blog viewers to not just accept personal opinions as documented fact.

    1. Health Care:Forty-eight percent support canceling the changes that the Obama administration and Congress made to the health care system. Thirty-one percent say they want the new health care law expanded, and just 16 percent say they want to leave the laws as is....That's 47% that want the health care law left alone or expanded.... Considering the margin of error , this poll indicates that it was a equally divided issue.... Considering seniors are already on Medicare it's a given that about 85% of that group are against the health care law, conservatives are against the health care law, and so are republicans..... I think the Americans you are talking about come from that group.

    2. Are you trying to convince someone that the voters really cared about a Cap-and-Trade bill that was barely passed in the house and never debated in the senate? That was way back ~ March of 2009...Really?

    Here's some interesting tidbits: Cap-and-Trade is a republican free market idea...

    Two decades ago, a new US president--George H.W. Bush--announced he would break the generation-long logjam on legislation to fight acid rain. His plan was an experimental incentive system dubbed “cap-and-trade.”

    The Clean Air Act of 1990 that he supported and later signed established a “cap” on sulphur oxide and nitrogen oxide (SOX and NOX) emissions nationwide that would decline over time. Owners of plants were allowed to “trade” emission allowances, essentially buy them from companies that reduced their emissions.Today, acid rain emissions are greatly reduced, utilities are weathering the worst recession in decades, and customer rates adjusted for inflation are still low enough to continue the country’s ongoing electrification. That’s a clear record of success that’s hard to argue with.

    During the 2008 presidential campaign senators John Mccain, Joe Lieberman, and Lindsey Graham cosponsored Cap-and-Trade legislation...Even Sarah Palin endorsed the McCain plan.

    "Yet many Republican officials greatly admire the father of cap and trade: President Ronald Reagan. Former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) praised Reagan last year:"
    "When you realize the magnitude of President Reagan’s achievements, there is absolutely no reason why anyone would ignore his ‘demonstrably good’ example."

    I'm not all that enthused about Cap-and-Trade but I don't let big oil or media outlets influence my position.

    Follow the money for sudden change...Fox News+big oil

    November 6, 2010 at 11:01 a.m.

  • born2Bme

    I have to give it to you, you have a lot more patience then I can ever dream of. You made some very good points but there were over looked by your opponents and the only concession they could come up with is " both parties do it."... That's an excuse not an answer,Nancy Pelosi did pass campaign reform legislation; pretty weak ,but it's all they could pass. The democrats do have a" Disclose Act" but they did not have enough votes to pass it. I bet the new GOP won't even bring it up for vote. I don't think there is a moral equivalence but we shall see who sides with big oil,dirty coal,Wall Street, and the big corporations.

    Like Chris Matthews said the other day " you can't win an argument with a supply sider" like religion, their beliefs are based in faith and theories, not actual data. As you know it started with Ronald Reagan .The Reagan disciples will swear that cutting taxes will increase revenues but they will leave out the fact that Ronald Reagan raised taxes, grew government and left a debt... They will present the Laffer Curve to prove a theory but that has been debunked several times....i.e. If you were to cut capital gains from 30% to 15% investors would quickly sell their capital gains property; increasing revenues for only a short time. Business owners would withdraw funds subject to capital gains tax, pay the 15% tax and purchase nonproductive luxury items, rather than leaving the money in the business to fund employee benefits. The supply siders will even try to make a case for the repeal of the Estate Tax which affects less than 1% of all taxpayers..... I having been wanting to write a blog explaining supply side economics, which is similar to Austrian economics', that Ron Paul favors but I don't think anyone would be interested.

    Republican legislators are frequent guests on the Bill Maher Show.. This is a show where they can let their hair down and say what they really believe... Last night I found out that representative Darrell Issa Knows that the math does not work for extending all of the Bush Tax cuts, so he tried to change the change the subject...Of course he had Time magazine's Fareed Zaharia challenging him every step of the way,so he couldn't bs his way out of it. I would willing to bet my last dollar that I will see Rep. Issa argue to reinstate the entire bush cuts; forgetting what he said last night or what he really believes..... It's really pretty simple, we will have to borrow the $700 billion to to extend tax cut to the top 2% creating a deficit, unless you have $700 billion spending cuts.

    Keep up the good fight

    November 6, 2010 at 10:29 a.m.

  • Writein..."Maybe, just maybe, its was your past comments and attitudes."

    Well, J, nothing's changed. Maybe WHAT was my past comments and attitudes. I have no idea what this comment is about, which of my comments you are referencing and what you mean about my attitudes.


    November 6, 2010 at 10:27 a.m.

  • born, both sides are bought and paid for. People are using the Republicans now to move away from something they like even less than what the right represents.

    There is terrible abuse and dishonesty going on in our government and in many businesses. We are in this mess we are in because of it. Honest and respectable people exist in both parties. They are trying to pull us out of this but are pulling from two very different directions.

    I have done my job, Born2, am retired. I never felt a need to watch Fox news, did not know they existed before '08. I feel I know how many people feel because I know lots of people, and this last election supports what I have expressed here. Our government does not want to face the fact that most people are not happy with health care, do not want cap and trade, and do not feel that the people in charge are doing what is best for our country.

    November 6, 2010 at 6:27 a.m.

  • Pilot.

    Sorry for what?

    November 5, 2010 at 10:49 p.m.

  • Mike.

    I didn’t ask for your help because I assume you were too busy etc. I am fully were of the local demographics and I no longer care. Especially, when you have the so-called local leadership using the Crossroads Education Commission not to help to stem the drop out rate, but to line their own pockets.

    November 5, 2010 at 10:43 p.m.

  • jbj,

    You're not remembering the posturing from Democrats after the election? That same posturing is going on now from the other side.
    You know "the people have spoken", "we won", "it will be our way or the highway", "they will have to come our way". etc. comments. Same music, different singers.

    And, don't assume you know what people assumed. You have no way of knowing, outside of FOX talking points, what people assumed. Many people don't actually know the definition of left, center, or right. They knew that they liked President Obama's vision and that is why they turned out in droves to vote for him. He gave them hope, where they had none before.
    Republicans are only promising to undo things that corporations, wall street, the financial institutions, and healthcare providers, want undone. They are bought and paid for.

    November 5, 2010 at 10:29 p.m.

  • WWW.

    Oh Please. I am against Health Care and Cap & Trade as well. Maybe, just maybe, its was your past comments and attitudes.

    November 5, 2010 at 10:18 p.m.

  • I won't argue that Fox is slanted right. I don't view them as ideologically more extreme than MSMBC, for example, but it depends on who is polled.

    Do I see striking resemblance between the Democratic rhetoric of '08 and the Republicans now? No. Democrats did not mean what they said then, ran on a promise of change that people assumed meant from the middle, and they meant to redistribute wealth and went about moving this country left aggressively. I think the Republicans are promising to undo what was done by Liberals, lower taxes, and get rid of the toxic environment for small businesses. I think they will try to do what they say, but will be fought tooth and nail by the liberals. I don't think the Republicans have an agenda they can't talk about now, and if it turns out they are not being honest, we will vote them out also.

    November 5, 2010 at 10:15 p.m.

  • SOB, I had a long thing typed and accidently hit something and it went bye-bye.
    Starting over.

    born, I will take Fox news over that of the Liberal bias we get from the mainstream media. So will most others, looking at the ratings.

    Now that is funny. I almost spewed my computer screen when I realized just how serious you really were with that statement.

    FOX News has high ratings because those who watch it night and day have nothing better to do with their time. I never knew FOX (other than channel 26) existed until I got DirectTV a few years ago and actually spent a few hours going through channels to see what was on all those other channels. I'm sure there are millions of people who are just like me. They work all day/night, do not waste their money on Satellite, have antenna, and get just a few channels. They spend all day going to class, and nights studying, or are working 12 hour days and just want to eat and crash when they get home. Not all voters watch TV. You cannot judge how voters think by some ratings of a news channel.

    November 5, 2010 at 10:05 p.m.

  • "born, I will take Fox news over that of the Liberal bias we get from the mainstream media. So will most others, looking at the ratings."

    Like it or not, Fox News IS part of the mainstream media and is viewed as the most ideologically extreme of the main news networks.

    "A Pew Research poll released on October 29, 2009, found that Fox News is viewed as the most ideological channel in America. 47% of those surveyed said Fox News is "mostly conservative," 14% said "mostly liberal," and 24% said "neither." In comparison, MSNBC had 36% identify it as "mostly liberal," 11% as "mostly conservative," and 27% as "neither." CNN had 37% describe it as "mostly liberal," 11% as "mostly conservative," and 33% as "neither."[54]"

    November 5, 2010 at 9:42 p.m.

  • TheWWW,

    He didn't do what he ran on. Those are the changes that people wanted. His agenda was watered down too much for those who wanted him to do more. The young people and the minorities that put him into office in 2008, stayed home this time.
    I do maintain that many, many people (not talking about everyone, of course) do not know how the process works and looked at President Obama as their savior out from under the weight of Wall Street, Big Business, etc., not realizing, or understanding, that he has limited power. They expected more, not the less that they got. They also took it out on the Dems, as a whole, because they did not do their part. Too many of the Dems voted with the Republicans and they saw that a betrayal. Betrayal is not rewarded.
    The race card was not played by all Democrats, nor was the Hitler/Socialist card played by all republicans. There will always be those party nuts that have to take it to a level that is not becoming of America and what it stands for.
    People are hurting more than the republicans have the ability to understand. People voted their pocketbooks in 2008, if they bothered to vote a few days ago, they voted their disillusionment with those they trusted to keep their promises. They may have been sending the Democrats a very strong message. They are saying that you have 2 years to do our bidding, or you are on your own in 2012. I hope Democrats are listening. If they do, things will turn around in 2012, because it is the Republican way to overreach and ignore the cries of the little people. I've heard it on the news for days how they have a mandate. They are not seeing what really happened.
    I see striking similarities in the rhetoric of the Democrats in 2008 and the Republicans now, don't you?

    November 5, 2010 at 9:27 p.m.

  • Please. Do I need to remind of Glenn “Obama is a racist” Beck , Sean “Neo-Nazi’s friend” Hannity, or Bill “the sex harasser” “O Reality ?

    November 5, 2010 at 9:27 p.m.

  • born, I will take Fox news over that of the Liberal bias we get from the mainstream media. So will most others, looking at the ratings.

    I was not a Bush fan but he looks pretty darn good in comparison. Looking at this week's elections, I am far from alone.

    If things go back to where they were during the Bush years, we will vote them out also. But when you make a wrong turn, you have to travel a little on the old path til you get turned around. It was the only road.

    We are correcting a very leftist move, and I expect those who were part of this plan to be very upset. The election was a move away from this and a loud repudiation of the legislation passed by this group. The tea party was a part of the opposition, plain old Republicans were a part of it, many independents and a few Democrats were also. There is anger at some of these groups and that is normal.

    November 5, 2010 at 9:14 p.m.

  • Born...I think you're being a little disingenuous in suggesting that people think BO doing everything alone. We really do understand that he proposes his agenda and if congress votes to pass it, he signs it into law. People are blaming HIM because it was HIS agenda. The president gets the credit when things go right and the blame when they go horribly wrong, as with the obamination of the health care mess. That's why he gets the big bucks and the prominate place in the history books.

    People beat up on Bush because of the way he walked on the Constitution with his patriot act and other "security" measures after the 9-11 attacks. People understood that those attacks on Bush were matters of principle and we complained loudly because be saw the damage he was doing to the Constitution. Now, however, Obama's supporters claim that opposition to his agenda cannot be based on principle but must be racist in nature. After all, BO is the progressive saviour and he's pure and he's right because he's a democrat. Therefore, racist hatred can be the only reason anyone would oppose him and his policies. We look at his health care bill and ask where in the Constitution he (and congress) gets the authority to REQUIRE citizens to purchase health insurance if they (in what they believed to be their rights as free Americans) didn't want to. I've never gotten an answer to that, but I have been called a racist and a hater because I asked the question.

    It is the democrats who are playing the race card by accusing BO's opponants of being racist. Democrats denigrate anyone who opposes their agenda by calling them the party of no. After all, they cannot vote contrary to the democrats because they actually believe differently. They are just obstructionists who, because they lost the last presidential election are out to harm the nation. It certainly can't be the opposition of conscience. Only democrats have a conscience and their motives are pure.

    November 5, 2010 at 8:58 p.m.

  • jbj,

    You are looking through the eyes of FOX News. The promises that you heard, were to return things to the way they were duing the Bush fiasco. Those are the exact policies that got them thrown out of office in 2008. If those policies return, they will get tossed again.
    You cannot compare this election with the last one. The turnout of those that voted Democrat last time was so much lower this time, so you cannot do a number-by-number comparison.

    November 5, 2010 at 7:33 p.m.

  • Good job Mike, you hit almost every Democratic party talking point with your last couple of comments.

    All of the opinions about "why" the mid term election turned out the way it did, are just that opinions.

    It sure must be nice to have a influential job as a political analyst, nice salary included, to say what was in the mind of each voter in a election.

    November 5, 2010 at 6:24 p.m.

  • I don't have time List all their accomplishments but you can go to Politifact to see that the 111th pass some major pieces of legislation.

    You didn't get the metaphor!!!..The president bragged about attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.... Accomplishments weren't necessary; just brag and Fox will do the rest.

    November 5, 2010 at 5:38 p.m.

  • You are right jbj,like they were in 2006 and 2008 but I don't remember democrats gloating as much or predicting a dynasty.....You have a good week -end

    Thank the independents, who swung the election...:-)

    November 5, 2010 at 5:34 p.m.

  • Mike what would they brag about?

    Left wing and right wing are not terms we made up.

    When one party passes legislation over the other party and over the will of the people, no one has to ask who owns it. And brag about it? They found out that would get them no where.

    November 5, 2010 at 5:33 p.m.

  • born2be, what about the right wing nuts?

    The only promises I heard from them was to return to smaller government, lower taxes, the constitution and to repeal Obamacare. It seemed to have had some effect, in the house and in the governors' races. The voters must have been pretty upset with those in power.

    November 5, 2010 at 5:29 p.m.

  • Sorry that should be "equal pay for equal work."

    November 5, 2010 at 5:19 p.m.

  • born2Bme

    OK, then I misinterpreted your statement"For some odd, and uneducated, reason they thought that all the Democrats would stick together when it came time to voting on the issues important to them."..Sorry

    I agree, literally "No one can judge what will happen in 2012 by this election" but you can look at the landscape, know that the democrats have 13 more senate seats to defend than the GOP, and acknowledge that the democrats have a steep hill to climb.

    There's a lot of republican grandstanding but it's the 28% independents that decided the election... The exit polls had those that did identified with the democrats at 36% & GOP 36%... It's pretty obvious that the voters didn't vote for GOP policies because they didn't present any... The right wing blogs and their media are telling their viewers that it was because of a left wing agenda.... That was not the case at all unless you call " equal pay for equal pay," the minimum wage increase and extension of unemployment benefits left wing policies...It was really hard to tell because republicans were voting NO against policies they initiated... They voted against "pay as you go" and a bipartisan commission on reducing the deficit/debt. They voted against financial reform. I guess those were all left wing agendas...... I wish I had that left/right Manual that tells you if a bill is left or right wing...... You are right,it is the 28% independents and which way they swing, that will decide the next election.

    You know they won't do it because is not in their DNA but the democrats need to start bragging about their accomplishments 'like the republicans do.... The need to have some " mission accomplished" moments.

    November 5, 2010 at 5:15 p.m.

  • Mike,

    Where did I say that I blamed the Democrats? No way! I blame all the lies and distortions done by the right wingnuts. They lied and distorted their way to victory. They preyed on the non-understanding of issues that were aimed to help the poor and the aged.
    All I'm saying is that in 2 years, when things don't go as promised by the other party, then those that voted Obama in on the hope of change, will know they messed up and go back to the polls in large numbers, especially if the Republicans are able to repeal "anything" that was dear to those voters.
    This election was not about what Republicans stand for because that is what lost them the seats in 2008, it was about disappointment in what the Democrats were able to get done, or better yet, not get done, because of obstructionism.
    Many people do not understand how the government works. I don't know how many times I heard the statement, "President Obama is going to do this and that". They do not understand that he cannot do anything by himself. Naturally, he is the one that gets blamed by those people. And, it is a fact that not as many people go to the polls in a non-presidential election year.
    No one can judge what will happen in 2012 by this election.

    November 5, 2010 at 4:49 p.m.

  • I don't need an apology from anyone who views the world in such black and white terms - it's their problem not mine!


    November 5, 2010 at 4:48 p.m.

  • Apologize for the truth, I don't think so♠ You guys are the ones that jumped into the pool together♣♣♣

    November 5, 2010 at 4:33 p.m.

  • MSNBC has suspended star anchor Keith Olbermann following the news that he had donated to three Democratic candidates this election cycle...That's their #1 star but they stuck to their standards.

    Not so at Fox.

    The following Fox Newsers have offered support for Republican candidates or organizations during the 2010 election cycle:

    * Fred Barnes, Fox News contributor
    * Glenn Beck, host of Fox News' Glenn Beck
    * Eric Bolling, host of Fox Business' Follow the Money
    * John Bolton, Fox News contributor
    * Tammy Bruce, Fox News contributor
    * Elaine Chao, Fox News contributor
    * Monica Crowley, Fox News contributor
    * Mike Gallagher, Fox News contributor
    * Newt Gingrich, Fox News contributor
    * Sean Hannity, host of Fox News' Hannity
    * Mike Huckabee, host of Fox News' Huckabee and Twentieth Television's The Huckabee Show
    * David Hunt, Fox News contributor
    * Laura Ingraham, Fox News contributor
    * John Kasich, former host and contributor
    * Brian Kilmeade, co-host of Fox News' Fox & Friends and host of Fox News Radio's Kilmeade & Friends
    * William Kristol, Fox News contributor
    * Michelle Malkin, Fox News contributor
    * KT McFarland, Fox News national security analyst and host of's DEFCON 3
    * Angela McGlowan, Fox News contributor
    * Dennis Miller, Fox News contributor
    * Dick Morris, Fox News contributor
    * Rupert Murdoch, CEO and chairman of News Corp., parent company of Fox News
    * Andrew Napolitano, Fox News senior judicial analyst and host of Fox Business' Freedom Watch
    * Sarah Palin, Fox News contributor and host of Fox News' Real American Stories
    * Dana Perino, Fox News contributor
    * Dave Ramsey, listed Fox Business personality and former host of Fox Business' The Dave Ramsey Show (through June)
    * Sandy Rios, Fox News contributor
    * Karl Rove, Fox News contributor
    * Rick Santorum, Fox News contributor
    * Doug Schoen, Fox News contributor
    * Andrea Tantaros, Fox News contributor
    * Stuart Varney, Fox News contributor and host of Fox Business' Varney & Co.

    November 5, 2010 at 4:31 p.m.

  • On Oct. 22,2010..... itisi said"Kyle C, you and Mike are on the same page that is obvious, but when you get so far left of center you have to raise your hand to be noticed.

    November 5, 2010 at 4:14 p.m.

  • itisi
    You continue to tie me with someone else and that probably is offensive to KyleC and PatB because both of them are much smarter than I am. I think you owe an apology to KyleC and PatB for comparing them to the likes of me.. I don't tie you to jbj just because you have similar thoughts.... I believe posters have opinions of their own.

    I'm well aware that you think your ideology is superior because you think it elevates your status but I challenge you to find somewhere where I said that I want to control what you eat, how you vote, how you think, or that liberals/ progressives or left of center democrats are better than conservatives.

    If I'm so offensive, why do you keep returning? I don't never visit your blogs, in fact I usually ignore your post but today is a slow day and I noticed that you tied me in with another poster,requiring me to respond.

    I'm requesting that you refrain from such practices.

    November 5, 2010 at 4:10 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    November 5, 2010 at 4:07 p.m.

  • PatB you and Mike really need to get grip that the voters are not in tune with this far left wing liberalism or progressive agenda or what ever you guys call yourself, Democrats you are not.

    You guys sit at the table with your elbows all propped up and eat conservative at breakfast, lunch and dinner by choice, but you will dictate to others they have to eat beans and rice and the government will tell me how much we can buy. It’s not going to happen, I will buy as mush as I need or how much I want. I will buy what ever vehicle I choose to buy or where to set my thermostat, I don’t need no stinking government to tell me that, and if I want to buy a “HAPPY MEAL” I will buy it♣♣♣

    You guys have driven this country into the “ditch” “since that is the liberal metaphor that has become so common.” You guys have told us where and when we can pray from football games to NASCAR, you guys seem to think you have to be involved in every aspect our lives, well you don’t, and you want be from my stand point.

    The difference between a liberal vegetarian and a constrictive you choose to ban meat, we choose not to eat meat. Liberties, you will not take that from me, as you have so demonstrated along with this President♠♠♠

    November 5, 2010 at 3:52 p.m.

  • jbj
    As I've said before the conservatives that that I have known are all obsessed with labeling.

    If a left of center democrat wanted to do a ti- for- tat labeling, they might say "what would you rather have socialism or plutocracy?".... Look at the definition of those two terms; that's what being talked about but there's no need to play the labeling game.... I'm aware that Social Security Medicare, and veterans care are all forms of socialism and privatizing former government functions leans toward plutocracy; especially if you do it with no bid contracts..... So does favorable regulations, tax incentives, and privatizing.... Just because one side doesn't cry foul; doesn't mean it's not taking place or as Grover Nothquist put it ""I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."...I wasn't born yesterday.

    November 5, 2010 at 3:28 p.m.

  • jbj

    You just repeating what you wrote the last time; only now you're doubling down.

    I think we're making too much of what is being said or done on both sides because it's a feeling out period. ...Each side will try to get an advantage; and a lot of what is being said might not be the same thing behind closed doors....The GOP does not take off until January 3rd, so as I've said I'm willing to wait until actual legislation comes up for vote.... I did mention about what key members are saying they will do but they haven't even been voted to chair any committees.

    BTW On a side note; the liberals lost one of their biggest voices when Keith Olbermann got suspended indefinitely for contributing to three campaigns.....

    November 5, 2010 at 2:59 p.m.

  • born2Bme

    That's not exactly true because it's gonna be a uphill battle for democrats in 2012.

    The Democrats have 23 seats that will be up for reelection and republicans only have 10 senate seats to defend in 2012 ,plus now that the republicans made gains in the states governor's races; they will redraw the district's to their favor.
    Since only 12% of the workforce are union members, union money can no longer compete with unlimited undisclosed contributions.

    The young and minorities sit out this election and I don't see them flocking to republicans.

    Democrats don't have anything like hundreds of talk radio stations and Fox News to deliver their message.

    The democrats couldn't even get their judicial nominees an up or down vote because one senator can prevent that, and it always took 60 votes to even bring a bill to the floor for debate.
    You can blame the democrats if you want but they are also victims of the circumstances... They never got credit for the economy not going into a depression or for the slow steady growth we are experiencing today. That's understandable.

    November 5, 2010 at 2:52 p.m.

  • Mike, I was actually referring to PatB's comment on wanting to slow down the rich, did not mean you do not like capitalism. Didn't really mean to infer that anyone here doesn't like it. But I feel it is because so many don't like the way the country is moving that made what might have been a loss of 30 seats turn out to be many more.

    The rich don't need help, they will do fine in any economy. Fact is, the middle class usually do better with lower interest rates.

    I never really thought about right or left. I agreed or disagreed with a candidate based on what he or she said and did. Obama got the same consideration. I became aware of left and right more than ever in the past few years. The lines used to be fuzzy, not so much now.

    We have seen partisanship in the past almost two years. It may not be possible to do it the other way. We will either have gridlock then flush again, one way or the other, or we will have a group who works together in a balanced way. But like rollinstone said, "compromise by the right will result in a step toward socialism." Republicans won on a promise to stop it. Some democrats did too. Compromise may move to the right.

    One election is not an indication of what the next will be. But if the same problems exist, it could be the same. I still hear the President saying that he didn't explain his legislation well enough, I don't hear him saying that he hears those who do not like the legislation.

    I know what you mean about the media analysis of Obama. It nauseates me too. In fact, so does the research that supports it.

    November 5, 2010 at 2:44 p.m.

  • The fact is that neither side wants to compromise, although I've seen more compromise coming from the Left in the last few years. Democrats lost this last election because they upset the base with all of the compromises and not taking on their pet projects in a timely fashion (immigration, etc.). For some odd, and uneducated, reason they thought that all the Democrats would stick together when it came time to voting on the issues important to them. It didn't happen, so they retailiated by sitting home this election. 2012 will be different. All of those that voted for President Obama are just waiting to see what Party does their bidding in the next 2 years.
    2012 is not a done deal by a long shot.

    November 5, 2010 at 2:36 p.m.

  • Your blog is a call for more compromise, but compromising with progressive socialists is like tightening a bolt with a ratchet wrench. The wrench only tightens it doesn't loosen, every "compromise" makes us more socialistic not less - it is a losing proposition for people that believe in free enterprise and capitalism.

    November 5, 2010 at 11:38 a.m.

  • jbj

    As usual, we usually talk right past each other and our discussions are counterproductive because we both hold on to our beliefs. That's to be expected. The most important thing I've noticed is the so called philosophy of why the democrats lost...Fact is, in off- year elections, the ruling party usually loses about 30 seats, this election it was higher but that too was to be expected because of the economy, the democrats were totally in charge, so they were voted out... I don't think a two year window should be used, not even on the incoming GOP but that's just the way the is.

    1. I don't find anything wrong with capitalism,the rich, or big business but I don't want them to get rich at the expense of the middle class.... I consider myself an unofficial lobbyist for the middle class.... The rich will survive,so you'll never see me taking up their cause and they certainly don't need it.
    2. I think the left/right issue is totally exaggerated because those lines have been fuzzy for years..I think conservatives are over possessed with it... i.e. Fact, 1/2 of conservative blue dog democrats were voted out and all the democrats that voted against extending unemployment benefits were voted out. The media just parrots what their political consultants tell them... It's not a detailed analysis such as the ones Charlie cook and Chuck Todd are working on.
    3. I don't think bipartisanship is necessary to get things done...i.e. If the GOP insist on tax cuts ,pass it without one democratic vote and it works... The democrats should learn from that and vice versa.... That's not to say that legislative members cannot attempt to compromise.
    4. I never think that one election is a permanent analysis of how the country feels and that goes for a single piece of legislation or members of Congress.
    5. That media analysis of Obama and what he stood for before after the election is becoming nauseating.... I feel that I have my opinions despite what the media thinks or tries to make their viewers think..... I watched all the debates for two years, read extensively, and spent a lot of my time observing, so I feel I don't need the media, pundits, or newspaper stories to tell me what is happening...I know exactly what Obama said,context, prior and after the election..I know what the democrats said they wanted.

    I noticed that we added 150,000 jobs last month, the stock market doing fairly well, the Fortune 500 have a 1.6 trillion surplus and more more companies are reporting profits... The low interest rates are benefiting the rich but this economy is slowly growing but only bad news will get that it will get the headlines.... It sounds like whining but I've been saying all along that it will take three years before we start seeing some improvement.

    You have stated your opinion, I stated mine and life goes on.

    November 5, 2010 at 11:34 a.m.

  • I guess in a capitalistic run system we are going to see some people get stinking rich, and the only way I can think of to stop it or slow it down is to slow down or stop capitalism. I think there are plenty right now trying just that and you can see what it is doing. Well, you may not, but plenty of others do. That is one reason we saw so many democratic house members lose their seats. A majority of voters don't really want either the results we are seeing or anyone messing with capitalism.

    When Obama ran for president, most voters took him at his word. Now they are seeing that he is going to govern much more to the left than he indicated, and some do not agree with his goals for our country. There is and will continue to be a shift to the right. If those who are not extreme on the left or right would work together this swing would not be so dramatic. But we tend to over react when something we value is threatened. Many of those who are near the center will pick left or right and move there aggressively. This does not help efforts to compromise.

    The only way we are going to see this country move forward with more jobs and a better economy is for people to work together and do some things that will get more businesses hiring. A goal of seeing the rich not be so rich will be counterproductive to this happening in a capitalistic system.

    November 5, 2010 at 10:48 a.m.

  • It didn't take long for me to get some answers of the question I asked in the blog.

    Senate elect Rand Paul has been saying that he will not support raising the debt ceiling...Wednessday, Poppa grizzly of the Tea Party wing of the GOP,Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said" he would not stand in the way of hiking the $14.3 trillion statutory debt ceiling, which Congress will have to tackle early next year to avoid default on U.S. government obligations. Republicans will extract a price for such action, however, which may include some form of down payment on spending cuts."....[they are calling it a down payment these ]

    "You don't have much choice if you charge something on your credit card. You have to pay it, and that's effectively what this debt limit is"

    On the house side,Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) said Republicans are going to take aim at derivatives rules laid out in the financial regulation law. Bachus, who is projected to become the new chair of the Financial Services Committee, will be able to take legislative action on rolling back the protections passed in order to prevent another moral hazard crisis that many say started the financial bubble burst.

    So much for Volker rule passing...... And some posters think it's about the wishes of the people who put them in office.... Voters may pull the lever but they had to be persuaded with the large amount of money that poured in to discredit the special interest opponents.... Voters are not going to lunch with their representatives today; lobbyist are.

    November 5, 2010 at 10:29 a.m.

  • Writein

    I know you didn't ask for my help because you specifically asked PatB but I have a little time on my my hands this morning,so I hope you will allow me throw in my 2¢ worth.

    You already know the demographics and the steep hill you are facing , especially if 65% of republicans vote straight party... I think it's safe to assume that the local Democratic and Republican party already have their candidates in mind, so your best bet would be running as an Independent. That's ideal for you. Party affiliation does not mean that much in local elections but if your goals are higher, it's a different story but you already know that.

    1. Get off the Victoria online Forum and use that time to take a course or two in city or county government management..... Then write an occasional guest blog or letter to the editor.
    2. Concentrate on your strengths and values such as the dropout rate and its causes and possible solutions but don't overlook the issues of today.
    3. Lose the hate and anger because it distorts rational thinking.
    4. Always say you are for smaller government and less taxes and sprinkle in the constitution in every other sentence... In fact carry a copy of it and let everyone know that you do.... You don't really have to know the constitution or how you intend to stop the growth of government. Pretty much out of the hands of a single member anyway.
    5. If you want to run for mayor, take field trips to the City Halls in Victoria and surrounding areas to get a feel for what it takes to be a mayor. Ask the folks of those communities what they expect of their mayor... Of course you could substitute school board member, councilman and commissioner using the same methods.

    Those are just my unprofessional opinions but if you run and lose, learn from your mistakes, correct them and then get back on that horse.

    November 5, 2010 at 10:04 a.m.

  • "Concentrate on the middle class because even though we were in a financial downturn the income of the very highest earners in the United States increased fivefold from the years 2008 to 2009. The executives of the 38 largest companies earned $140 billion last year."

    Where do you get this crap?

    November 5, 2010 at 9:30 a.m.

  • PatB said "Although I'm not sure how to go about it,I think My duty for the next two years is to do all I can to thwart the republicans from helping to improve the lot of the wealthy. "

    I had the same goals about 4 years ago but I thought I would start out slow by just debunking all the myths but I had some help back then from a poster called ragman, the editor Joe Bean and his associate. They would not allow us to post anything controversial without a legitimate source to back it up. After they left, the posters that used myths said that Snoops, Factcheck, and Politifact were propaganda tools of the left.

    Today, I will occasionally write some positive things that might have been overlooked and present a left of center view solutions.i.e. It's a few days too late but 151,000 new jobs were added in October and the September report at been adjusted from the reported 64,000 jobs to 107,000 and wages are increasing two fold...This economy is growing but too slow for most.... Of course the makes a good case that inflation is not too far behind, which will be exaggerated,and the steady growth will probably go unreported.

    I wish you luck

    November 5, 2010 at 9:30 a.m.

  • KyleC

    Best man on Fox News - Chris Wallace: probably and I really liked it when he continued to try to get republican senator John Kye and then senate candidate Carly Fiorina to admit the Bush tax cuts would add to the deficit and they they had to be paid for...He did try.

    Last night I saw a clip of Anderson Cooper telling Michelle Bachmann that she had no basis for her claim that the president's Asian/India (which he has postponed many times) would cost $200 million a day, using 34 warships, taking about 2000 people with him, and staying at the expensive Taj Mahal..... Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and others at Fox repeated the same bogus claim and their uninformed viewers believe them..... Normally, it would normally be brushed off as Fox being Fox but pentagon spokesman,Geoff Morrell, was forced to make a statement saying that we would never use 1/10th of the Navy to protect the president and details of a president's trip are kept secret for obvious security reasons..... Unfortunately these days it doesn't take much to get a rumor going.....Fox left out the part that India has felt it was being ignored by the White House even though they're considering purchasing $11 billion new 126 multi-role combat fighter jets.

    November 5, 2010 at 9:05 a.m.

  • PatB.

    If you want to help, then help me. I am FED UP !!!!!!!!!!!

    November 5, 2010 at 5:19 a.m.

  • Best man on Fox News - Chris Wallace.

    November 4, 2010 at 11:30 p.m.

  • One of the most amazing things during the run up to the election was how the hot button issue "secure the border". The governor from Arizona went underground?

    November 4, 2010 at 8:57 p.m.

  • Although I'm not sure how to go about it,I think My duty for the next two years is to do all I can to thwart the republicans from helping to improve the lot of the wealthy.

    November 4, 2010 at 7:16 p.m.

  • Writein

    Do you remember about three years ago when the conservative posters used to constantly say the only reason democrats win is because of straight line party voting? They went on say how stupid that was..... Go back and look at Gabe's chart where it compares GOP straight line voting to the Democrats.... I won't spoil the surprise but but I don't expect them to say " I guess I was wrong."

    Have a good evening, dinner bell is ringing.

    November 4, 2010 at 5:56 p.m.

  • Mike,

    Your column reflects a lot of bantering.

    On Tuesday the inside circle was broken and the voters have spoken.

    There are no more or less Democrats or Republicans, but on Tuesday night the demographics across the U.S. went “RED”♣♣♣

    Oh, BTW, your last paragraph is really funny, you mention democrats 14 times +/- one♣♣♣

    November 4, 2010 at 5:43 p.m.

  • Writein

    No need to be sorry, you might be right.
    We will just have to agree to disagree for about the 100th time..:-)

    November 4, 2010 at 5:41 p.m.

  • The GOP won because of the Democrats. Somehow voters got the idea that the Democrats were not listening and the Republicans were all that was left.

    The blue dogs paid their debt, along with many others who think Pelosi did them any favors. They have plenty of time to think about it in their new jobs.

    Reading your blog it would seem that it might be hard to get the two parties to compromise, and it may be. It won't be easy to persuade the Republicans to vote against the wishes of the people who put them in office because they promised to listen and to not compromise on a Liberal agenda. Maybe it will be a little easier to get a handful of Democratic senators to think, "Let's see... that was a tough race. Maybe I better vote for what the voters want. I am not ready to retire."

    November 4, 2010 at 5:39 p.m.

  • Mike.

    Sorry. But I would support Rep. Heath Shuler for Speaker over Nancy Peisli anyday.

    November 4, 2010 at 5:31 p.m.

  • PatB

    That's gonna be quite a fight because Karl Rowe is trying to undercut Sarah Palin before she gets any traction for 2012.....He said if Sarah Palin gets the republican nomination; president Obama would crush her..... I guess Christine O'Donnell,Sharron Angle,Joe Miller, and Carl Paladino can replace Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum when they make their presidential run....They could save the RNC money on office space by moving the RNC their main office.

    November 4, 2010 at 4:32 p.m.

  • I'm with you mike. Now that Fox has retaken the house who is Rupert going to run for prez in '12?

    November 4, 2010 at 4:18 p.m.