Palins Taps Out

[deception]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/palin-to-resign-as-governor-of-alaska/?hp

By leaving office early, Ms. Palin, a 45-year-old mother of five, will be able to travel around the country more freely and not be constrained by the duties and responsibilities of being a governor.

But the timing is quite extraordinary. At home, she has faced new criticism that ethics inquiries surrounding her — including Troopergate involving her former brother-in-law — had cost upward of $300,000 in state money, according to The Anchorage Daily News.

And just this week, a new Vanity Fair magazine article exposing exceptional animus toward her by top aides to Senator McCain, her running mate, has revived questions about her political acumen and her political future.

 

[deception]

Re: Palin Taps Out

some more fun stuff: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/footshooting-season-opens-in-alaska-1732193.html

Veteran Republican pollster Glen Bolger said: "There is just no good way to say quitting has made her more qualified to run for higher office". And a party media consultant, Todd Harris, said Palin was becoming a joke. "I think Sarah Palin is on the verge of becoming the Miami Vice of American politics: Something a lot of people once thought was cool and then 20 years later look back, shake their heads and just kind of laugh."

Palin did not help herself by delivering what appeared to be a largely off-the-cuff address on Friday, in which it took 11 minutes to get round to mentioning she would resign. The speech looks set to become another Palin internet classic, alongside her catastrophic interviews with Katie Couric during the campaign, the post-election interview conducted with a farmer slaughtering turkeys in the background, and Tina Fey's spot-on impersonations of Palin on Saturday Night Live.

On all sides, observers were combing through the rambling resignation speech she delivered on Friday by the lake at her home in Wasilla, flanked by her family. Could she really be about to take to the national political stage? Or the TV studio? Or did she and her family just want out of the spotlight, which has turned their personal travails into a tabloid soap opera and her political career into a costly legal nightmare?

The reasons in the speech seemed too many to be consistent and were occasionally outright incoherent. They included the desire to not be a "lame duck" governor after deciding not to run for a second term, through being fed up with "the politics of personal destruction", to a promise to "effect positive change outside government".

 

[panthersare#1]

Maybe she wasnt making enough money as a governor, she could make a lot more money in other areas due to her recent fame. It seems ridiculous that all that all of the headlines and VP stuff has happened to a women who spent only 2 years as a governor. And Obama only had around 2-3 years of experience in the US senate before he went hardcore campaigning for the presidency.

 

[deception]

Maybe she wasnt making enough money as a governor, she could make a lot more money in other areas due to her recent fame. It seems ridiculous that all that all of the headlines and VP stuff has happened to a women who spent only 2 years as a governor. And Obama only had around 2-3 years of experience in the US senate before he went hardcore campaigning for the presidency.

the question is about competency: obama has it and palin does not. her time on the national stage has been reduced to a series of embarrassments so much so that even staunch, loyal republicans have repudiated her

 

[Chutney]

And a party media consultant, Todd Harris, said Palin was becoming a joke. "I think Sarah Palin is on the verge of becoming the Miami Vice of American politics: Something a lot of people once thought was cool and then 20 years later look back, shake their heads and just kind of laugh."

That was soo cold.

 

[RipCity]

Maybe she wasnt making enough money as a governor, she could make a lot more money in other areas due to her recent fame. It seems ridiculous that all that all of the headlines and VP stuff has happened to a women who spent only 2 years as a governor. And Obama only had around 2-3 years of experience in the US senate before he went hardcore campaigning for the presidency.

Obama campaigned for the Presidency longer than he was a Senator if I remember correctly.

While I don't agree with Palin as a politician, she was essentially destroyed by the media. If her plan is to be done with politics, then I say good for her, however if this some sort of retarded strategy to run in 2012 I'll be pretty pissed off/disappointed.

the question is about competency: obama has it and palin does not. her time on the national stage has been reduced to a series of embarrassments so much so that even staunch, loyal republicans have repudiated her

Obama competent? Obama is an inexperienced jackass and has proven it thus far with his comical attempt at "fixing" America. He has done nothing positive, and has only hurt the U.S. in pretty much every facet he has become involved with.

Keep drinking the Kool-aid chief.

 

[deception]

Obama competent? Obama is an inexperienced jackass and has proven it thus far with his comical attempt at "fixing" America. He has done nothing positive, and has only hurt the U.S. in pretty much every facet he has become involved with.

Keep drinking the Kool-aid chief.

he inherited two wars and the worst financial crisis since the depression; he's not a miracle worker just a guy with an unenviable job. however, in terms of competency between him and mccain- he's certainly got it and mccain doesnt. he's good the intellect, the political savvy to get things done in washington and the support of most americans. i dont know what your particular grievance with him is but let me address a few things: the stimulus was a necessary evil, in fact, most economists overwhelmingly supported the stimulus; gitmo was deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court so he had no choice there; the public option if done might be the seminal moment in his presidency and u guys would join the rest of the industrialized world who already enjoy a robust public one. he's right more times than he's wrong and that qualifies him as competent. btw, this idea that us liberals lionize obama is egregious, its no more true than conservatives doing the same with reagan.

 

[Denny Crane]

he inherited two wars and the worst financial crisis since the depression; he's not a miracle worker just a guy with an unenviable job. however, in terms of competency between him and mccain- he's certainly got it and mccain doesnt. he's good the intellect, the political savvy to get things done in washington and the support of most americans. i dont know what your particular grievance with him is but let me address a few things: the stimulus was a necessary evil, in fact, most economists overwhelmingly supported the stimulus; gitmo was deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court so he had no choice there; the public option if done might be the seminal moment in his presidency and u guys would join the rest of the industrialized world who already enjoy a robust public one. he's right more times than he's wrong and that qualifies him as competent. btw, this idea that us liberals lionize obama is egregious, its no more true than conservatives doing the same with reagan.

Reagan inherited a far worse economy. Clinton inherited a recession and a collapse of the S&L system and things got better.

There's no doubt Obama's made the recession he inherited much worse.

 

[deception]

Reagan inherited a far worse economy. Clinton inherited a recession and a collapse of the S&L system and things got better.

There's no doubt Obama's made the recession he inherited much worse.

thats just false. and fyi- many leading economists and multilateral bodies predict the recession will end in 2009 at the earliest and 2010 at the latest.

 

[deception]

btw, not acting would have been cataclysmic, in fact, i firmly believe the stimulus saved the financial sector and that means he saved your pensions, your investments and everything else we value in our lives

 

[Denny Crane]

He pushed for a stimulus bill that had no stimulus in it. His constant talking down the economy, hostility toward business, and predilection to raise taxes to pay for ill considered big govt. programs are clearly harmful.

The money spent on the financial institutions was approved before Obama was elected and half or more spent before he took office.

And many economists think the recession might have turned the corner months ago if not for govt. interference.

 

[deception]

He pushed for a stimulus bill that had no stimulus in it. His constant talking down the economy, hostility toward business, and predilection to raise taxes to pay for ill considered big govt. programs are clearly harmful.

The money spent on the financial institutions was approved before Obama was elected and half or more spent before he took office.

And many economists think the recession might have turned the corner months ago if not for govt. interference.

he's anti business? categorically wrong as demonstrated by geitner's plan to fuckin buy up all the banks toxic assets. big government has become a conservative euphemism for socialism but these bailouts are totally in line with what the US govt has done during the great depression and how they rebuilt europe with the marshall plan. btw, to reiterate most economists, conservative and liberal alike peddled the stimulus. arguing against the stimulus (interference) would be counter intuitive dont u think? one criticism that i would launch- he should replace the antiquated regulations on the financial sector with new modern ones that account for the creativity of the financial products offered.

 

[Denny Crane]

he's anti business? categorically wrong as demonstrated by geitner's plan to fuckin buy up all the banks toxic assets. big government has become a conservative euphemism for socialism but these bailouts are totally in line with what the US govt has done during the great depression and how they rebuilt europe with the marshall plan. btw, to reiterate most economists, conservative and liberal alike peddled the stimulus. arguing against the stimulus (interference) would be counter intuitive dont u think? one criticism that i would launch- he should replace the antiquated regulations on the financial sector with new modern ones that account for the creativity of the financial products offered.

Not true on most counts.

I don't see govt. acquiring corporations as socialist. National Socialist maybe. Fascist, certainly. At the very least it injects politics into the hiring and firing decisions of the board of directors and management of those companies (already has as the CEO of GM was fired).

Packard was one of the big 4 automakers in Detroit. Where are they now? That's how capitalism works - companies either profit or fail. On the other hand, we bailed out Chrysler in the 1970s/1980s and it worked; we lent them the money they needed, they rebuilt and thrived and paid it back. The govt. didn't buy stock or own the company.

I don't know anyone but democrats in congress and the president and his employees who peddled the stimulus package. It had near 10,000 earmarks in it. A giant piece of pork barrel legislation to fund the "liberal" programs that they felt were neglected for so many years. I don't see any stimulus in a bill where the bulk of the spending is in 2010.

 

[deception]

Not true on most counts.

I don't see govt. acquiring corporations as socialist. National Socialist maybe. Fascist, certainly. At the very least it injects politics into the hiring and firing decisions of the board of directors and management of those companies (already has as the CEO of GM was fired).

Packard was one of the big 4 automakers in Detroit. Where are they now? That's how capitalism works - companies either profit or fail. On the other hand, we bailed out Chrysler in the 1970s/1980s and it worked; we lent them the money they needed, they rebuilt and thrived and paid it back. The govt. didn't buy stock or own the company.

I don't know anyone but democrats in congress and the president and his employees who peddled the stimulus package. It had near 10,000 earmarks in it. A giant piece of pork barrel legislation to fund the "liberal" programs that they felt were neglected for so many years. I don't see any stimulus in a bill where the bulk of the spending is in 2010.

so fdr was a fascist? ever heard of the concept of "too big to fail"- it rings true when u have an economy whose very linchpin is credit. the bailouts were "selective" with the financial sector being favoured over the auto industry and the tarps were ephemeral as demonstrated by the countless banks who have passed the stress tests and have begun paying back their debts with interest. going back to the "too big to fail" concept- banks were simply not lending to small and large lenders which had a tsunami effect on everything else like companies making their payroll obligations.

and economists from left to right peddled the stimulus, no arguing with that. the pork is an unfortunate technique used to get populist support but i doubt that occurs again with the new filibuster proof majority the democrats enjoy

 

[RipCity]

he inherited two wars and the worst financial crisis since the depression; he's not a miracle worker just a guy with an unenviable job. however, in terms of competency between him and mccain- he's certainly got it and mccain doesnt. he's good the intellect, the political savvy to get things done in washington and the support of most americans. i dont know what your particular grievance with him is but let me address a few things: the stimulus was a necessary evil, in fact, most economists overwhelmingly supported the stimulus; gitmo was deemed unconstitutional by the supreme court so he had no choice there; the public option if done might be the seminal moment in his presidency and u guys would join the rest of the industrialized world who already enjoy a robust public one. he's right more times than he's wrong and that qualifies him as competent. btw, this idea that us liberals lionize obama is egregious, its no more true than conservatives doing the same with reagan.

Wow..This is going to take a minute.

1. Obama is nowhere near as competent as McCain, Obama however is a significantly better speaker and that is all. Just because McCain can't vocalize as well as Obama doesn't mean he's less competent.

2. As for the "political savvy to get things done"...He can do whatever he wants at this point with little opposition, he can get anything done he wants.

3. Your totally missing the point on the stimulus bill. There was nothing stimulating about it. As Denny said it had over 10,000 earmarks and was the biggest piece of pork barrel garbage spending ever. It was rashly written and not really thought out at all. Republicans wanted a stimulus package however they weren't about to rush something that will have an affect for so long.

4. The closing of Gitmo was a public relations stunt. All he did was announce he was going to close it in a year. If it was that simple the Bush administration would have done it. Now he's having the same problem and that is finding countries to take these people. Simply put no one wants them and only a handful have found a host country willing to accept them. The bulk of them were transferred to a prison in Afghanistan at Bragram IIRC. Essentially it's the same thing, just a different name.

5. Your comparison with Ronald Regan is a joke. Obama is nowhere near the same level as Regan. Obama didn't win by a landslide remember, and the country is as divided if not more than it was under Bush. Regan united us, something Obama will never accomplish simply because he is too far left.

 

[Denny Crane]

so fdr was a fascist? ever heard of the concept of "too big to fail"- it rings true when u have an economy whose very linchpin is credit. the bailouts were "selective" with the financial sector being favoured over the auto industry and the tarps were ephemeral as demonstrated by the countless banks who have passed the stress tests and have begun paying back their debts with interest. going back to the "too big to fail" concept- banks were simply not lending to small and large lenders which had a tsunami effect on everything else like companies making their payroll obligations.

and economists from left to right peddled the stimulus, no arguing with that. the pork is an unfortunate technique used to get populist support but i doubt that occurs again with the new filibuster proof majority the democrats enjoy

FDR had a lot of fascist tendencies, and outright admired Hitler (early on) for getting Germany out of the world wide Depression far sooner than anyone else. But no, he wasn't exactly a fascist. Big difference between what he did (just grew govt., spent big, tried to get us into War) and what Obama's doing (owning companies).

And, FWIW, I greatly prefer gridlock over either party getting their agenda done. Things are bad enough.

Wow..This is going to take a minute.

1. Obama is nowhere near as competent as McCain, Obama however is a significantly better speaker and that is all. Just because McCain can't vocalize as well as Obama doesn't mean he's less competent.

2. As for the "political savvy to get things done"...He can do whatever he wants at this point with little opposition, he can get anything done he wants.

3. Your totally missing the point on the stimulus bill. There was nothing stimulating about it. As Denny said it had over 10,000 earmarks and was the biggest piece of pork barrel garbage spending ever. It was rashly written and not really thought out at all. Republicans wanted a stimulus package however they weren't about to rush something that will have an affect for so long.

4. The closing of Gitmo was a public relations stunt. All he did was announce he was going to close it in a year. If it was that simple the Bush administration would have done it. Now he's having the same problem and that is finding countries to take these people. Simply put no one wants them and only a handful have found a host country willing to accept them. The bulk of them were transferred to a prison in Afghanistan at Bragram IIRC. Essentially it's the same thing, just a different name.

5. Your comparison with Ronald Regan is a joke. Obama is nowhere near the same level as Regan. Obama didn't win by a landslide remember, and the country is as divided if not more than it was under Bush. Regan united us, something Obama will never accomplish simply because he is too far left.

Reagan won with 56%, but an electoral landslide (lost one or two states). Obama won with 53%, which I think was considerable.

Careful.

Not sure Obama had any mandate but "anyone but a republican."

 

[deception]

Wow..This is going to take a minute.

1. Obama is nowhere near as competent as McCain, Obama however is a significantly better speaker and that is all. Just because McCain can't vocalize as well as Obama doesn't mean he's less competent.

2. As for the "political savvy to get things done"...He can do whatever he wants at this point with little opposition, he can get anything done he wants.

3. Your totally missing the point on the stimulus bill. There was nothing stimulating about it. As Denny said it had over 10,000 earmarks and was the biggest piece of pork barrel garbage spending ever. It was rashly written and not really thought out at all. Republicans wanted a stimulus package however they weren't about to rush something that will have an affect for so long.

4. The closing of Gitmo was a public relations stunt. All he did was announce he was going to close it in a year. If it was that simple the Bush administration would have done it. Now he's having the same problem and that is finding countries to take these people. Simply put no one wants them and only a handful have found a host country willing to accept them. The bulk of them were transferred to a prison in Afghanistan at Bragram IIRC. Essentially it's the same thing, just a different name.

5. Your comparison with Ronald Regan is a joke. Obama is nowhere near the same level as Regan. Obama didn't win by a landslide remember, and the country is as divided if not more than it was under Bush. Regan united us, something Obama will never accomplish simply because he is too far left.

1) mccain is not only incompetent, he's senile. suspending his campaign, bringing palin on without an exhaustive background search, etc. americans should thank their lucky stars everyday that u have obama.

2) he's the reason why all those senators got elected- so americans handed him a mandate to get things done.

3) the pork is unacceptable but i think he wants to appease certain elements whether they be conservative or liberal, some may call it consensus building.

4) it wasnt a public relations stunt, it wouldnt have made sense as a public relations stunt either because americans are divided on the issue. however, the supreme court with a 5-4 conservative majority deemed gitmo to be unconstitutional so if u want to blame someone- blame the conservative dominated supreme court. he had no other option to close it.

5) i never compared obama to reagan; i compared the lunacy of venerating each by conservative and liberal ideologues alike. plus, reagan was a hugely unpopular after he left office. in terms of his leadership he was the antithesis of an uniter- ask the air traffic controllers, ask the people on social assistance who he targeted and ask black americans who felt completely ignored by his administration. ever heard of reaganomics- its reverse robin hood where u steal from the poor and give to the rich. and he was a bold face liar- he publicly took the hardline stance that he would never negotiate with terrorists than he went ahead and negotiated with terrorists (i.e. iran contra affair) moreover, reagan was an intellectual lightweight, he was a freakin movie star who i think had already developed alzheimer's by the end of his tenure

 

[deception]

Obama won with 53%, which I think was considerable.

Careful.

Not sure Obama had any mandate but "anyone but a republican."

thats a good mandate

 

[Denny Crane]

thats a good mandate

There's a reason why Republicans have mostly dominated the government since 1980. Guys like Carter (and now Obama) got elected with Democrat majorities.

 

[deception]

There's a reason why Republicans have mostly dominated the government since 1980. Guys like Carter (and now Obama) got elected with Democrat majorities.

mr crane, u're omitting one undeniable fact- the demographics are rapidly changing in america. republicans have never made any considerable traction amongst minority voters with the exception of the 2004 elections where bush used his latino nephew (i,e, jeb bush's son) to campaign for him. although, latino's abandoned the republicans after the immigration reform debate and the perceived or imagined backlash against latino communities. and the polarizing politics of palin (e.g. pals around with terrorists, "The Real Virgina) will only alienate the republicans from a country which is rapidly changing

 

[Denny Crane]

mr crane, u're omitting one undeniable fact- the demographics are rapidly changing in america. republicans have never made any considerable traction amongst minority voters with the exception of the 2004 elections where bush used his latino nephew (i,e, jeb bush's son) to campaign for him. although, latino's abandoned the republicans after the immigration reform debate and the perceived or imagined backlash against latino communities. and the polarizing politics of palin (e.g. pals around with terrorists, "The Real Virgina) will only alienate the republicans from a country which is rapidly changing

The republicans are idiots, no doubt. But democrats in power equally generate a "throw out the bums" movement, especially as the recession continues and people see $trillions in deficits, $trillions more in "stimulus" bills that don't improve their situations, and the democrats' version of the culture of corruption.

FWIW, I voted for Ron Paul (write in).

 

[deception]

levi johnson claims palin left to pursue lucrative deals: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31846807/ns/politics-more_politics/?GT1=43001

Levi Johnston, 19, whose wedding to Bristol Palin was called off earlier this year, says he believes the governor is resigning over personal finances.

Johnston says he lived with the Palin family from early December to the second week in January. He claims he heard the governor several times say how nice it would be to take advantage of the lucrative deals that were being offered, including a reality show and a book.

 

[porky88]

Someone needs to tell Levi to go away.

I know there is talk that she's leaving politics for good, but I don't buy it.

Palin left so she can pull an Obama. Write a book, make money, get back in the spotlight and win the nomination.

This wasn't anything more than a political move so she could run for President. She can't run while being up in Alaska. Well she could, but it'd be difficult. Whether it was a good move or not will remain to be seen. I tend to think her political career is a big joke and that she is unelectable. Americans have short memories for the most part though and it's a what have you done lately type of attitude that we all posses.

So maybe that can save her.

Palin will run against Newt, Romney, and probably Huckabee. Those seem to be the four favorites. Newt will be bashed because of his hypocrisy. Romney because of his religion and flip-flops. Palin and Huckabee will fight for the base of the republican party which is deeply religious people.

Personally if I'm a republican strategist, Romney/Huckabee is the ticket I'd sell.

As far as the Obama stuff....

Obama and Regan are very similar in my opinion. I don't mean in terms of political views though. I mean in terms of popularity. Regan took it and ran with it. Right now Obama is stalled at midfield and people don't know what to think. They like him, but he's taking to long to fix this country, but they also know the republican party is a complete joke right now. Republicans aren't doing any favors trying to call Obama a socialists or a Marxist. I don't think Americans are as immature as the republican or dem party is right now.

I think it's way to early to judge whether or not Obama is going to be successful or not. I know some were expecting him to snap his finger and the problems would go away, but realistically, it's going to be awhile. They were talking about a recession lasting until the end of 09 even before the presidential election. Just because those economist didn't appear on cable news doesn't mean they weren't right and know what they're talking about.

Of course most agree that Obama isn't helping either. Yes he inherited a mess, but he can't clean it up with another mess.

I do think the stimulus package hasn't done anything. I don't think it did any bad or good. It was a band aide for a gunshot wound.

That doesn't mean we need more band aides though and that's probably where we're heading.

 

[RipCity]

1) mccain is not only incompetent, he's senile. suspending his campaign, bringing palin on without an exhaustive background search, etc. americans should thank their lucky stars everyday that u have obama.

2) he's the reason why all those senators got elected- so americans handed him a mandate to get things done.

3) the pork is unacceptable but i think he wants to appease certain elements whether they be conservative or liberal, some may call it consensus building.

4) it wasnt a public relations stunt, it wouldnt have made sense as a public relations stunt either because americans are divided on the issue. however, the supreme court with a 5-4 conservative majority deemed gitmo to be unconstitutional so if u want to blame someone- blame the conservative dominated supreme court. he had no other option to close it.

5) i never compared obama to reagan; i compared the lunacy of venerating each by conservative and liberal ideologues alike. plus, reagan was a hugely unpopular after he left office. in terms of his leadership he was the antithesis of an uniter- ask the air traffic controllers, ask the people on social assistance who he targeted and ask black americans who felt completely ignored by his administration. ever heard of reaganomics- its reverse robin hood where u steal from the poor and give to the rich. and he was a bold face liar- he publicly took the hardline stance that he would never negotiate with terrorists than he went ahead and negotiated with terrorists (i.e. iran contra affair) moreover, reagan was an intellectual lightweight, he was a freakin movie star who i think had already developed alzheimer's by the end of his tenure

Forgive me for taking so long to respond, I've been busy.

1)McCain is nowhere near incompetent or senile. Suspending his campaign in hindsight was clearly not a good idea, but it's not really all that crazy either. As for Palin's background check, if you would compare her's to say, half of the people appointed by the Obama administration, I'd have to say McCains people did a little better job. How many of Obama's appointee's had tax problems again? And finally, Americans are starting to realize their mistake. Obama's approval ratings are dropping like a rock, from 62% in June to 54% today.

2)What is so confusing about this. Very obviously a little less than half the country voted for him, the rest disagree with him. He has no mandate to change anything, the current situation just allows him to almost at will.

3)So he spends a record amount of money to "appease certain elements" in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression under the guise of stimulating the economy? Are you smoking rocks? The stimulus package was a wish list for Democrats and did nothing for the economy, that it, that's all, end of story.

4)Once again totally missing the point.

He had pledged to close Guantanamo as one of his first acts in office, mainly as a sop to his anti-war support base. At his Feb. 6 meeting with the families of the victims of terrorism, the president played up the symbolism of closing Guantanamo more than the substance. He lumped Guantanamo together with Abu Ghraib as negative symbols of America's war against terrorism. The two are completely unrelated, of course - there have never been credible allegations of Abu Ghraib-like misconduct at Guantanamo - but in the fantasy world of the anti-war radicals they are akin to the Gulag or Auschwitz, so Guantanamo had to go.

The left has denounced the detainee facilities in Afghanistan with the same vitriol as Guantanamo, but since they lack Gitmo's marquee value the administration may consider this move less risky politically. And maintaining the Bush administration's logic on detainees in Afghanistan does present the Obama team with an important opportunity. As previously noted in these pages, the decision to close Guantanamo had been rushed through without adequate staff work and without considering the negative ramifications of the decision. In particular the administration faces a quandary: What to do with the remaining Gitmo detainees? The answer now presents itself: Ship them all off to Afghanistan, where they can be detained for as long as necessary without the right to demand lengthy, complicated trials in U.S. courts that could potentially reveal important intelligence secrets and compromise our national security. Problem solved.

Sourcehttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/24/voila-ship-gitmo-detainees-to-afghanistan/

4)You very very clearly don't know anything about Reganomics. To that point, I won't even bother arguing this one.

 

[deception]

Forgive me for taking so long to respond, I've been busy.

1)McCain is nowhere near incompetent or senile. Suspending his campaign in hindsight was clearly not a good idea, but it's not really all that crazy either. As for Palin's background check, if you would compare her's to say, half of the people appointed by the Obama administration, I'd have to say McCains people did a little better job. How many of Obama's appointee's had tax problems again? And finally, Americans are starting to realize their mistake. Obama's approval ratings are dropping like a rock, from 62% in June to 54% today.

2)What is so confusing about this. Very obviously a little less than half the country voted for him, the rest disagree with him. He has no mandate to change anything, the current situation just allows him to almost at will.

3)So he spends a record amount of money to "appease certain elements" in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression under the guise of stimulating the economy? Are you smoking rocks? The stimulus package was a wish list for Democrats and did nothing for the economy, that it, that's all, end of story.

4)Once again totally missing the point.
Sourcehttp://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/24/voila-ship-gitmo-detainees-to-afghanistan/

4)You very very clearly don't know anything about Reganomics. To that point, I won't even bother arguing this one.

mccain is an idiot and certainly not fit to be president. palin was described as a "wasila hillbilly" by mccain staffers. in contrast, obama is a harvard trained lawyer; the first black president of the harvard law review and thought by many as one of the most erudite politicians thats ever come along.

he certainly has a mandate by the american ppl, hence his victory in the popular vote and in the electoral college. plus, the dems control the senate. i dont know what more u want. do u want him to hold referendums on every issue like they do in cali? that hasnt really worked out has it?

the stimulus package resucused americans from the brink? ever heard of too big too fail? plus, many of the financial institutions have got off tarp and posting profits.

reaganomics sucks, just ask poor ppl. btw, many of the eastern european nations who were supposedly democratized by reagan are now collapsing.

 

[Denny Crane]

Nixon is considered by scholars to be the smartest president ever. Look what that got us.

Jimmy Carter was pretty smart, too, and he outright sucked and really hurt the country.

On the other hand... Ike, Reagan, and Bush were constantly called stupid, yet were two term presidents (and Reagan and Ike were outstanding presidents).