The End of the Honeymoon

Barack Obama has benefitted from good relations with the press. How will he handle it when things turn sour?

By Howard Fineman | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jun 29, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: prettycat @ 07/18/2009 8:33:12 PM

    I THOUGHT i WAS READING SOMETHING FROM fOX.YOU AND YOUR KIND HAVE GIVEN THIS MAN SIX MONYHS TO CLEAN UP 8-9 YEARS OF NOO GOVERNMENT. hOW ABOUT DO NOT NOT WRITE HIM OO TOOO QUICKLY. iF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO, YOU WILL BE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY. ARE YOU LIE PAT B. DO YOU APPEAR ON FOX, AS WELL AS MSNBC. PRETTYCAT

  • Posted By: tanarg @ 07/09/2009 11:58:05 PM

    All I can say is, "Better late than never." I could, I suppose, add, "What took you so long?"

    But I might add, "Too little, too late."

    However, if you really give him what he DESERVES and what you should have given him from 2007 onward, I might just skip the above and say, "You guys have restored my faith in the American press."

  • Posted By: xinunus @ 07/09/2009 1:57:00 PM

    OBAMA EATS ENDANGERED BELUGA STURGEON WITH PUTIN

    Quote:
    Russian agencies, quoting the government's press service, said Putin treated Obama to black caviar with sour cream, smoked beluga with pancakes and tea made in the traditional Russian samovar, a big coal-fired kettle.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BarackObama/idUSTRE56657E20090707

    http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService_2_MOLT/idUSTRE5661Q520090707

    WIKIPEDIA:
    --------------
    IUCN classifies the beluga as Endangered. It is a protected species listed in appendix III of the Bern Convention and its trade is restricted under CITES appendix II. The Mediterranean population is strongly protected under appendix II of the Bern Convention, prohibiting any intentional killing of these fish.

    The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has banned imports of Beluga Caviar and other beluga products from the Caspian Sea since October 6, 2005.

  • Posted By: xinunus @ 07/09/2009 1:55:42 PM

    OBAMA EATS ENDANGERED BELUGA STURGEON WITH PUTIN

    Quote:
    Russian agencies, quoting the government's press service, said Putin treated Obama to black caviar with sour cream, smoked beluga with pancakes and tea made in the traditional Russian samovar, a big coal-fired kettle.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-BarackObama/idUSTRE56657E20090707

    http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersComService_2_MOLT/idUSTRE5661Q520090707

    WIKIPEDIA:
    --------------
    IUCN classifies the beluga as Endangered. It is a protected species listed in appendix III of the Bern Convention and its trade is restricted under CITES appendix II. The Mediterranean population is strongly protected under appendix II of the Bern Convention, prohibiting any intentional killing of these fish.

    The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has banned imports of Beluga Caviar and other beluga products from the Caspian Sea since October 6, 2005.

  • Posted By: publicdefender @ 07/06/2009 2:06:16 PM

    Okay Obama haters, relax. Nothing he has done or will do will ever screw up the country the way your dear leader W did.
    And Howard, don't be one of the guys who needs to "generate copy" just because the Washington reporters decide it's time.
    And really, why is it labeled a honeymoon just cause he wasn't relentlessly trashed the way Bill Clinton was. It's fair to criticize when it's warranted, but once it becomes a sport, the public (who happens to like this man) will see through the BS this time.

    • Posted By: bighappy @ 07/07/2009 2:02:45 AM

      When Obama tells you "jump" from the clif - please jump. You have to be faithful. And we will stay on the sidelines and applode.

    • Posted By: HolyRoller @ 07/06/2009 5:59:12 PM

      You may be right....He will not have enough time....Rumor is a "Kenyan Medical Professional" is offering a "Certified Birth Certificate" for $1,000,000. I hear they have offers, if proof is undeniable.

      Can you say...."ALLAH AKBAR"?

  • Posted By: MJ000777 @ 07/05/2009 3:04:21 AM

    "What are President Obama's real objectives? Does anyone really know and if he told you would you believe it?

    Robin Hood"

    How is it going so far? The results speak for themselves. Unemployment up, consumer confidence (in Democrat controlled Govt) down. Sure a majority of Americans (and illegal aliens and dead people) voted for Obama, but the people in the middle surely did not vote for increased taxes through Cap and Trade and Govt run health care. Where is the common sense in penalizing the US with Cap and Trade when China and India (two of the biggest polluters) will not be held to the same standards and in fact have far lower standards. Consumers aren't spending and companies aren't hiring because they cannot get a read on the Govts policies. The result is less of the precious tax revenue coming in that the Govt craves.

    Obama is trying to legislate Economic justice and save the planet through his Crazy policies. Ultimately, he will go down in history as the Worst President ever if he passes everything he is trying to pass because those policies will hamper our economy for years to come.
    Remember Dems, "It's the economy stupid".

  • Posted By: dicere @ 07/04/2009 1:03:04 AM

    To Presdient Obama all are tools to be used until unuseable. Becoming unuseable is equivalent to an epiphany in which the tool has figured out he or she will have to carry proof of health insurance card or be subject to a 1000 dollar fine, or finding out the medical benefits are going to be taxed, cap & trade will really raise the cost of everything they buy, or the Predient has really spent over $38000 for every man woman and child in the country.

    Why did he bail out business and leave the little guy hanging? $38,000.00 would have kick started the economy in a way which has never been seen; a family of 4 would have recieved $152,000. All debt would have been gone, the house paid off, an education.

    What are President Obama's real objectives? Does anyone really know and if he told you would you believe it?

    Robin Hood

  • Posted By: DrewCAENG @ 07/01/2009 10:46:34 PM

    Bkrummel - Look you have a bureaucrat handling your health insurance now. Your bureaucrat takes home a million dollars a year by rejecting your claims and jacking up your fees every 6 months. These companies are out to make profit how can we blame them for providing lousy coverage. In Europe the taxes aren't higher because of health care, in fact the avg European pays thousands less yearly then us for healthcare via their taxes. The high tax rate in Europe is because of welfare programs that I certainly do not agree with. Lets look at Medicare - which is my friends socialized! The average cost to handle a claim through Medicare is 3% through a health insurer its 35%!!!! What does that tell you?

    With regards to your other statement about not providing me with ONE thing Bush improved or didn't screw up you sound like all my conservative friends you guys all dance around it without answering then pretend like its somehow above you to just give me one thing the a-hole improved over his 8 year term. C'mon I'm still waiting.

    With Iraq - well lets see the guys lied about our reason for being there, that's a fact. They gave out NO BID government contracts to all their buddies like it was going out of style, (fiscal conservatisim indeed) and the guy even referred to himself as the war president on numerous occasions. C'mon don't be naive.

    Here I'll give you one thing Obama has done well just to prove how easy it is. - He signed the lilly ledbetter act and restored stem cell research to its rightful place. Hey that was 2 things wow easy

    • Posted By: bighappy @ 07/02/2009 12:15:11 AM

      Only solution is to eliminate completely outpatient health insurance. 30-40 years ago people paid to doctors - and spent much less.
      Silly assumption is that health insurance companies will control doctors and restrict unnecessary medical procedures. In fact, doctors now give special discounts to patients who is willing to pay directly, and at the same time gladly prescribe very expensive procedures, like CAT scans. Patients will not object because they don't pay, and insurance companies have trouble disputing the necessity, so they increase premium instead.

      • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/02/2009 12:57:09 AM

        "Only solution is to eliminate completely outpatient health insurance. 30-40 years ago people paid to doctors - and spent much less."

        You know, I find it interesting that you say this. Ron Paul, who is a doctor, has said the same thing about "30-40 years ago people paid to doctors - and spent much less". I have also read a piece by Milton Friedman claiming that while the US pays more than Europe on health care, the health care costs of both the US and Europe have risen since World War 2 due to the increasing involvement in health insurance covering things like outpatient care (I don't know if the data supports this but it's still interesting).

        This is a common point of libertarians: to fix health care eliminate outpatient health insurance. I think it sounds like a good idea. I would like the universal health care advocates explain why we shouldn't do this (and I also want them to tell me how they know Obama's particular public option will be well managed).

        • Posted By: bighappy @ 07/03/2009 12:19:44 AM

          One example. I visited nose doctor, nothign seriuous, it took only 15 minutes. My co-payment was only $30, the rest was paid by insurace. How much? I was surprized to find out it was $500 for those 15 minutes - he claimed 2 surgeries (in fact, very simple observatory manipulations with special instruments - I did not feel a thing), and insurance had no way to control. If he tried to con me on $500... Oh yes, he also sceduled unnecessary CAT scan (zero for me, $900 for insurance), was extremely persistent (and inventive, I guess) when originally insurance refused.

        • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 07/02/2009 1:26:12 PM

          Though I like the guy, I think Ron Paul was being a bit disingenious when he said that. The reason we are here today with the beasts of Medicare and Medicaid is rooted in the inadequacies of our healthcare system of 30-40 years ago -- people wanted greater coverage and more control over that coverage. Jump to today and we've got a federal healthcare system that comprises over 50% of the market...sometimes close to 2/3rds of the market in poorer states like mine.

          There's so much hype with regards to what is going on in the healthcare debate these days that even the most basic distinctions between the providers and the healthcare delivery system versus the insurance complications are too often lost. But the differences are critical to improving the system (not fixing a "broken" system -- what crap!) For the vast majority of Americans, insured or not, they still recieve and have access to a pretty damn good system; albeit through the door of the emergency room rather than via outpatient primary care. But, even those with insurance are still behaving the same way...emergency rooms are often the first stop for them as well. I know...I work in one.

          What has become a real problem is how to insure everyone (or at least more of us who wish to be insured -- not everyone does). Based on knowing how much Medicare and Medicaid screw up the local market by capping fees at ridiculously low prices...which forces unpaid costs to be pushed elsewhere is a real HUGE part of the problem. Commerical/private insurance is out to make a buck. No secret there...but if more insurers were in the market, then at least greater competition would occur. But as long as "we" think that by adding more mountains of regulations equate to creating a fair, competitive market, we will continue to see cost inflation. I believe the answers to containing costs is to take actions that artificially drive them up -- starting with the impact of Medicare and Medicaid; with capping reimbursement ideas (that only create shortages...which drive up costs); with outdated anti-portability rules; with not allowing folks to purchase differing types of insurance across State lines (the "we're too stupid - need government laws); and with unproductive insurance regulations forcing the mixing of high risk groups with low risk groups (varies greatly across the States).

          So....I'm not just putting down Obama Care because its his idea....but that the ideas so far being floated miss the mark entirely and are far more political solutions than practical. Yes, he'll get more votes with claims of Healthcare For Everyone...but its a load of crap.

          • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/02/2009 6:57:04 PM

            Thanks for your posts Libertyfirst. Your perspective having worked in emergency rooms and dealing with Medicare and Medicaid are certainly enlightening. Especially the part about Medicare and Medicaid pushing their costs elsewhere.

            You are right that regulation needs to be greatly reformed. However, we have to be careful with reforms. Current regulations assume the current employer-based system. If we just have everyone to buy health care without their employer and purchase across State lines like McCain suggested, they could be left unprotected under the current regulations. The point is that this is a delicate issue and we have to reform carefully. The goal is to come up with regulation that works well and does not hinder competition.

            "the ideas so far being floated miss the mark entirely and are far more political solutions than practical"
            Yea, this happens all the time. I'm not familiar with health care like you are, but I am familiar with education. They have been proposing political solutions like smaller classrooms, whole language, and more testing for years. They never address the heart of the issue of the students learning concepts to mastery and not just learning to pass the tests. We need to move pass the political ideas and come up with good ideas for issues. Unfortunately, the health care and education have been overly politicized and this precludes serious talk about practical ideas.

          • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 07/02/2009 1:55:42 PM

            My apologies for the typo regarding "taking actions (to) drive up costs artificially" - rather, I think we need to take actions to reduce such cost drivers.

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/02/2009 12:48:16 AM

      "The average cost to handle a claim through Medicare is 3% through a health insurer its 35%!!!! What does that tell you?"
      Firstly, percent of what? Listing percentages themselves are meaningless and could indicate anything or even nothing. But I'll assume the figures you cited indicate that Medicare is much more efficient at handling a claim. Medicare is cutting corners and probably has some fraud going on. The health insurer is being inefficient. The later is odd because it is in the health insurer's interest to spend less money processing a claim, so the question is why the inefficiency. It could be paying the processors too much, excessive steps taken to prevent fraud, or other things. I already take the position that I don't trust Medicare and the health insurers need reformed, so this cute statistic doesn't surprise me.

      "C'mon I'm still waiting."
      Don't hold your breath. I'm not going to answer the question. It isn't worth it.

      • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 07/02/2009 1:43:55 PM

        BK: that 3% Medicare admin cost comparison is really misleading. Medicare costs the healthcare system billions in compliance costs (lord knows how many seminars and red tape I am forced attend and understand, and stick to). Medicare also does not pay for itself....running skyhigh deficits -- thus, their 3% of "not enough" must be made up elsewhere. There are many other problems with the 3% -- but enough said.

        The other crap I often hear these days is in regards to the goofy WHO comparisons of "quality of healthcare" across nations. Wow... any careful review of how they derive their statistics should (and would) leave the reader the impression of the moronic and politicized agenda of that UN inspired group. There's such an array of "apples n oranges" problems with such rankings that comparing our system with France's (for instance) is less than fruitful.

        Nevertheless, what I do find stunning in the Federal Option or the Universal Healthcare ideas floating around is the unfounded trust and faith in the federal government to take this massive responsibility on and carry it out in a cost efficient, fair, and quality enhancing manner? I mean, what planet am I living on? Anyone who has dealt with Medicare or Medicaid should be fairly freaked out thinking that they would grow even bigger and comprise the whole system.

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/02/2009 12:48:05 AM

      "Your bureaucrat takes home a million dollars a year by rejecting your claims and jacking up your fees every 6 months."
      So you are telling me that health care providers make money by basically conning me: I pay them to provide a service yet they refuse to provide the service. If this were the case, it is the job of the government to institute proper regulations to prevent conning the customer and to arrest people involved in such cons. Moreover, I know this isn't the case because my current health care provider has covered claims for me and my family. Health care providers take home a bonus for rejecting frivilous claims and setting fees at an appropriate level to keep making money. Note that making money means retaining customers and not screwing everyone over. Now if the health care providers are screwing people over by rejecting claims that they shouldn't, it's the job of the government to provide regulations that prevent this. We probably do need better regulations regarding health care to protect people from claims being inappropriately rejected and to allow people to switch insurers without getting penalized for preexisting conditions.

      Now, do you want the government to cover your car insurance? I have not heard of a general request for this. I will note that the state government to provide basic car insurance for people who can't afford it. Now, the people who provide car insurance get bonuses, reject claims, and raise fees too. Why is health insurance so different that we need the government running it? (Also, why does car insurance just cover accidents and tune ups while health insurance covers not only catastrophic care but check ups and simple doctor visits for the bacterial infections?)

      Clearly the health care industry needs badly reformed. This may even entail a properly run public option. But the public option I keep hearing about are "Medicare-like", i.e. another entitlement program. We already have a number of entitlement programs, some even for health care, and they are all extremely expense and in bad need of reform. We have been discussing entitlement reform for years and no one wants to touch it as it is a 3rd rail of politics. How do I know the health care public option won't be the same? I don't want another program that is big, expensive, and resistant to reform. If you can explain how the exact health care public option you support will be well managed, paid for, and open to reform and you can explain how the public option plus a number of other reforms will be actually fix the health care system, you can have your public option. But if all you are going to do is complain that you don't want Big Evil Health providing your insurance and you want the government to do it like they do in Europe (this is all universal health care advocates ever say), I'm just not interested in your public plan.

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 07/02/2009 6:23:25 PM

    Update on earlier.

    The Washington Posts Howard Kurtz is pulling his ''shocked,shocked'' Louie Renault routine [Claude Rains,CASABLANCA,1942] over the revelations connected to his papers new status as news pimp.
    The WaPos publisher,Katherine Weymouth, has ''pulled'' her series of ''imtimate dinner settings'' at her private home [ which means that the deal was about to go down when unmasked] with lobbyists and Those Who Desire To Be Connected after POLITICO splashed the news,leaving ''news'' pointing fingers at ''business'' for ''straying off the reservation'' in their decision to release fliers to K Streeters that offer ''contact'' with the Obama WH for a fee of between 25 grand at the low end to 250 Gs for the upper crust,along with columns in the rag that would be penned by the usual hack suspects.All The Garbage Fit To Print, while the MSM takes another hit in the gut for Hopenchange. Why we should believe any damned thing they print [as even FOX is not this reckless] will be left to those not gulled by such seamy machinations.

    www.politico.com July 02,2009.

  • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/02/2009 2:08:29 AM

    Paulejb, in response to the fact that I would "refuse to vote for someone merely because they disagree with you on social issues" and your reply that "Never would have thought of you as a "one issue" voter, BK" - Social issues are not just one issues. There are a number of issues: gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, teaching evolution vs. creationism, school prayer, and intolerance of atheists like myself. I very, very strongly disagree with the Religious Right on these issues. I think that gays should marry. That abortion should remain legal and the Right has no real policy for banning or regulating abortion. That stem cell research is exciting and should be supported rather than restricted. That only science should be taught in the science class and, since evolution is science and creationism (or intelligent design) isn't, only evolution should be taught. I don't think I should be compelled to pray in public considering I don't believe in God.
    I simply cannot support political candidates who will impose a social agenda that I disagree with and infringes on me and my friends freedoms, especially when they can't deliver on other issues that I may agree with them on. Would I vote against these people over the many issues in this social agenda? Absolutely.

    Believing this does not make me a bigot. I strongly believe in individual liberty and have come to my social positions as a consequence of that belief. Gays and women who feel the need to get an abortion should be free to live their lives as they wish without religious people imposing their views on gays or women. It's their lives and not everyone else's. I am not a bigot for preventing people from imposing their narrow-minded views on others. Religious people can still worship freely. They can still impart their values on their children. I don't think having gay married neighbors or abortion clinics distracts from their kids learning their values, though I think the kids will be exposed to alternate values anyways and will chose their own values ultimately. The Religious people are free to live their lives. I and my friends, including the gay ones, are free to live ours.

    As for the intolerance of atheists, I don't believe in God. But the political party I have leaned closest to continues to profess that their belief in God is central to their party. They have politicians, for example Mitt Romney, who quote John Adams "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." I strongly resent that quote and any other anti-atheist sentiments. I am not a religious person and yet this is still my country too and I am a good American. Sorry, I can't vote for a candidate or even a party that can't show me some basic respect.

    As for not voting for Palin - In 2012 after 4 years of disaster under Obama you would refuse to vote for Palin. Not because "she has f

    • Posted By: MJ000777 @ 07/02/2009 5:15:42 AM

      BK, so are you saying you won't vote for Romney because he believes in God and is not afraid to say so? The country Really was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, but that is what makes America great. Because most (including Christians) are tolerant enough to live and let live. In some Muslim countries you could not go on the Internet and say you did not believe in Allah without worrying that someone might track you down. If I were in a Secular/Atheist communist country or in some Muslim countries, I could not go on the Internet and say Jesus is Lord without worrying that I might be imprisoned.

      How many gays are getting married (or joining in civil unions) in Saudi Arabia or China? I am a Christian but do not condemn Gays or encourage harm be done to Abortionists. I also do not bash Atheists without cause. I do think abortion is wrong as is my right. I think marriage is for a man and a woman. Gays and Lesbians can have civil unions; why do they insist on their coupling being called marriage? You might think I am narrow minded, but I think you are narrow minded in your thinking on Sarah Palin and Christians. Again, as you know this is America, so it is your right to say what you want about Romney, Palin, me Christianity or anyone else here. Even Obama! That's what makes America Strong.
      May we always have that right.

      Oh yeah, it is called the Theory of Evolution, not the Fact of..... Only parts of evolution is real science.. Big bang? Creation without a creator? Nothing coming from sludge? Okay, you get my point. Where are all of the transitional fossils? It is still up for debate although we are probably locked into our respective viewpoints at this time.

      The Case for Christ is a book I recommend. It was written by a former Atheist Lee Stroebel. Not trying to cure you, just suggesting a decent read. Peace.

      • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/02/2009 1:10:04 PM

        "Oh yeah, it is called the Theory of Evolution, not the Fact of..."
        Evolution is a scientific theory. That means that evolution was derived at through the scientific method and that the theory makes predictions that have been tested. Of course it isn't a fact, it is merely the best explanation we have for the origin of the species.

        "Where are all of the transitional fossils?"
        They have found them. One of the common claims is there are no transitional fossils from fish to land animals or land mammals to whales. They have found such transitional fossils, some rather recently in fact. That's the thing about science - it is predicted that these fossils exist and some of the fossils have been discovered, upholding the theory.

        Now, you have criticized in the usual erroneous way that the Theory of Evolution is flawed and not real science. This really just shows how little the public, including myself, understand the Theory of Evolution. You have yet to actually defend that Creationism is actual science. I will say on this point that Creationism is religion and that science says absolutely nothing about religion. Even if there is a debate, religion should not at all be taught in science class.

        • Posted By: MJ000777 @ 07/02/2009 2:50:55 PM

          When did we stop evolving? Why are there still primates? There is still the question of Creation without a creator......

          I misspoke about the Theory not being science, but of course science is always subject to being changed. Maybe evolution and creation are intermixed in the making of the universe. I don't know and you don't know. Even the scientists and theologians who claim they know don't really know, so I guess it is kind of pointless to argue. But America was founded on Judeo-Christian values and that point cannot really be argued. I stated the value of that to all in a previous post.

          See what Noah Webster has to say about Christianity and education.

          "In Webster's original dictionary published in 1828, his definition was: "Education - The bringing up, as a child, instruction; formation of manners. Education comprehends all that series of instruction and discipline, which is intended to enlighten the understanding, correct the temper, and form the manners and habits of youth, and fit them for usefulness in their future stations. To give children a good education in manners, arts and science, is important; to give them a religious education is indispensable; and an immense responsibility rests on parents and guardians who neglect these duties." "

          "In Webster's United States History Book, he has a chapter on the U.S. Constitution. In there is a section with the heading, Origin of Civil Liberty, which contains this: "Almost all the civil liberty now enjoyed in the world owes its origin to the principles of the Christian religion... The religion which has introduced civil liberty, is the religion of Christ and His apostles, which enjoins humility, piety, and benevolence; which acknowledges in every person a brother, or a sister and a citizen with equal rights. This is genuine Christianity, and to this we owe our free constitutions of government..." "

          http://www.american-partisan.com/cols/2002/shenandoah/qtr1/0304.htm



          • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/02/2009 6:04:22 PM

            The religious instruction of children should be left entirely up to the parents, both if and what religion their children should learn. Just because Noah Webster thinks "religious education is indispensable" does not mean the parent agree. If the parents feel their kids should learn religion, it is the role of the parents and the church to teach religion. Even Noah Webster emphasized the role of the parents in this. Finally, I should note that despite Noah Webster's belief that education is "useless without the Bible", I got educated without the Bible and became a good citizen and a straight A student who went on to higher education, so based on my experience I would have to disagree that my education without the Bible was quite useful.

            I will not deny the influence Christianity has had on our culture and government, in particular the Christian roots of "civil liberty". I have certainly accepted some cultural influences of Christianity, including a belief in individul liberty and the celebration of Christmas. But I do not accept all of Christianity, in particular the existence of God, as is my perogative.

            I have no interest in debating religion Hitchens vs. DeSouza style. You can believe what you want. I can believe what I want. We are all good Americans. I just want my political party to respect my beliefs. It isn't hard; our president Obama has done a wonderful job of respecting our religious diversity and in particular nonbelievers. I don't know why Republicans find it so hard to respect atheists (actually I do, they prefer to pander to the Religious Right for votes). Just stop using the John Adams quote and occassional mention of nonbelievers like Obama does. Or talk about the importance of your religion on your life and our culture if you want, but do so in a way that acknowledges that not every American is Christian. Seriously, it's just simple common courteousy and respect that I shouldn't even have to ask for.

          • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/02/2009 6:03:51 PM

            On Creationism, perhaps evolution and creation together give you a more complete understanding of the universe that you personally find acceptable. There are certainly flaws in the Theory of Evolutionary and religion can prove explanation to fill in those holes. That's fine and you should feel free to believe what you want to believe. You can teach it to your kids if you want. You may even be correct (I certainly can't disprove this).

            But Creationism is not science. Creationism is not determined by the scientific method (Creationism comes from the Bible) and does not make testable predictions about the way the universe behaves. Creationism is a completely different discipline from science, it is religion, and it should not be taught in science class as if it were science. Now, if you want to discuss controversies like evolution vs creationism in social studies class so that students understand the various sides of the issue, that is fine (I should note that Christopher Hitchens has written Newsweek article proposing this).

      • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/02/2009 1:09:39 PM

        "BK, so are you saying you won't vote for Romney because he believes in God and is not afraid to say so?"
        No, I'm saying I might not vote for someone like Romney because they overtly disrespect atheists. If Romney wants to believe in God and profess it publicly, I don't care. If Romney is going to pretend like this a nation only for religious people, I find that disrespectful. What's worse is Romney was doing it to prop up his own religious standings before an intolerance base that considers not voting for a candidate because he is Mormon or atheist. I just want my political party to show they respect me. Is that too hard to ask? Say what you will about Obama's liberal policies, at least Obama openly acknowledges and respects the religious diversity of America, including nonbelievers. Why can't Republicans do the same?

        "The country Really was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, but that is what makes America great."
        The country was founded on religious freedom and a number of the Founding Fathers were deists. Since the time of our founding, the country has evolved into a country with great religious diversity with people of religions other than Christianity and over 10% of the population atheist. Stop pretending that America is a "Christian nation" and that is what makes us great because none of that is true. America's freedoms and diversity, even for religion, is what makes America great.

        "I think marriage is for a man and a woman. Gays and Lesbians can have civil unions; why do they insist on their coupling being called marriage?"
        Marriage is about a loving commitment to build a life together. It has nothing to do with gender. One may argue that traditionally marriage is between a man and a woman, but this is weak reason for refusing to change the definition of marriage and is just political talk for denying gays the right to marry. You might also argue over the fact that marriage is to produce kids and families, but some couples chose not to have kids or can't have kids biologically and adopt, which gays can do too. This aside, gay unions are identical to married unions except in name.

        As for calling gay unions the name civil unions and not marriage, simply put this is separate but equal. They tried civil unions in New Jersey and in other states and civil unions were not equal to marriage. Gay couples faced discrimination from employers and, since the public does not fully understand civil unions like they do marriage, the civil union rights weren't always honored. (See http://www.nj.gov/lps/dcr/downloads/CURC-Final-Report-.pdf)

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/02/2009 2:10:40 AM

      As for not voting for Palin - In 2012 after 4 years of disaster under Obama you would refuse to vote for Palin. Not because "she has firmly held beliefs that differ from yours". I would refuse to vote for her on the account that I disagree with her political position. If she wants to be a Christian that's her business. If she want's to impose her Judeo-Christian values on me and others through public policy that is something totally different. Also, I dislike Palin for more than just her social positions. The woman has had a number of bad and embarrassing interviews. She would do a horrible job of speaking to the American people. Palin does not understand most national issues. She lacks intellectual curiousity. She doesn't even have foreign affairs experience. Palin is highly unqualified to be president. She is also an embarrassment to the Republican Party. I would vote against Palin because I think she is overall a horrible candidate that I oppose thoroughly and I think she would be more disasterous as president that anything Obama could ever be.

      P.S. Sorry this posted twice. Newsweek was acting funny.

  • Posted By: Jtopol @ 07/02/2009 3:31:47 PM

    The pres talks out of both sides of his face, wake up.The economy is tanking because of over spending, with money we do not have. Howard Fine you need to wake up, your such a kiss A$$

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 07/02/2009 3:03:34 PM

    Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 07/02/2009 12:10:18 PM
    Reform is impossible under the current Democrat leadership.


    Just so. Two things.

    One. The Washington Post getting into the pimp business.[ no kidding].

    For 25,000$ the Washington Post will allow ''access'' to the Obama administration [ how it performs this task may not be as surprising as one may think, given their ''Honeymoon'' status with the Boss],as well as its chief reporters and editors in order to create articles and ads sympathetic to the views expressed by the individual, group, lobbyist, or organization. News For Sale, is how propaganda will be peddled as news. Interest groups will thus be able to move from an advocacy ad format into something that resembles actual ''news'',complete with bylines and interviews duly performed by like-minded scribblers, of which there are no end of these at WaPo. [ we will observe here that the Nazis got the same kind of deal by forking over dough to the BERLINNER ZEITUNG in the formative 1920s Weimar years that allowed smiley-face articles to be drafted showing the cuddly side of the National Socialist movement]. Thus there are no ends of things that are Rotten In Denmark coming from such an arrangement.

    Two. Recall that Obama as he laid it down would see dividends returning to the ''American people'' through TARP repayment.

    Not so fast. The NATIONAL REVIEWS Byron York has caught Democrat Barney Franks [Mass] grubby paws in the TARP cookie jar preparing to hand over our money to ACORN. Indeed, the TARP recovery monies are turning into a pork -fest free-for-all among the Democrats who promised to ''drain the swamp''. As expected, members of the BCC, Obey,Murtha,Hoyer ,Pelosi and others are lining up to rip you and us off .[in an attached article, REUTERS observes a ''ten-fold'' increase of taxpaid travel claims being settled by junkateer lawmakers].The Center for Responsive Politics along with the NR are on the case. Flake is preparing to raise hell about these revelations later today. In a non-related note, REUTERS also finds that the Democrat leadership [including its comptroller] of the State of California will be sending out IOUs to Californias taxpayers....while it pays its own members...in cash.........

    www.nro.com July 02,2009

    www.realclearpolitics.com July 02,2009.

    www.crew.org July 02,2009

    www.reuters.com July 02,2009

    www.opensecrets.org The Center for Responsive Politics

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 07/01/2009 8:07:24 PM

    Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/01/2009 3:17:03 AM
    If we replaced Bush the moron with Obama the idiot, who are we going to replace Obama with? A Republican nincompoop? Do the Republicans even have a future presidential candidate worth voting for?

    You bet. Which is why Obama sent him packing to China in order to get him out of the limelight.

    He is John Huntsman,one of the most successful governors in Utah state history, and a firm centrist who got gays to back him, and assisted before he left in demolishing the states strange booze and bar laws which have just been repealed,also taking a hand in balancing the states budget . He leaves for China with one of the best approval ratings of any national governor earning kudos from the Anointed One himself,which is probably why he wanted him as far away from the political scene as he could get.
    Another is Minnesotas Tim Pawlenty,. This governor,while never as popular as Huntsman, still draws moderate approval ratings for the stewardship of his state while its chief executive. The ''Obama Remedy'' ,he is young,centrist, while a fiscal hawk. Thus far,nothing that the tabloid press can nail either with.
    Yet another is Arizonas Jeff Flake. While not even close to an official buy-in for the job, he has been urged to take a more prominant role along with Jim DeMint in casting for the parties future. Both are squeaky clean, with absolutely no whiff of either scandal or the usual pay-to-play antics prevelant within the Beltway, Flake, being usually referred to as an ''Elliot Ness'' who earns perfect 100% ratings from every single political and lobbyist watchdog group in America,lauded for his relentless embarassing and humiliation of Democrat porkers creating real emnity with Hoyer, Obey and Murtha who are all demonstrative crooks in their own right,as well as going after members of his own party. Socially moderate, a fiscal and defense hawk.

    Thus there are any number of strong GOP lead roles. The press would rather that the nations attention be directed to Palin. I told Fineman that I would have none of this, regarding the very real possibility that one of the above men could toss his hat in the ring come 2011. If all things are then as they are now, any of the above would provide a competitive choice to Obama, who may,as Carter was ,be further dragged down by events out of his control, or worse, as in the late 1970s,further meddled with by a Congress dominated by Democrats, and cronyism within the WH, setting up the Reagan Revolution only six scant years after the humiliation of Watergate and Nixon upon the GOP.

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/01/2009 8:23:26 PM

      "He is John Huntsman...assisted before he left in demolishing the states strange booze and bar laws which have just been repealed,also taking a hand in balancing the states budget."
      He changed the silly Utah alcohol laws?! Please make him president! Serious, if he is competent, a centrist, and support the gays, sounds like someone I'd consider.

      Pawlenty sounds okay. Flake sounds like a good fiscal conservative, but he needs to do more than just embarrass Democrat porkers and actually accomplish real pork reform. I would love a good socially moderate, fiscal hawk. Though I'd prefer a candidate who is more "peace through strength" and less hawkish on defense.

      Republicans like this need to become more well known to the public. I know the media is focusing on the tabloidish antics of Palin and other silly Republicans and on the grand agenda of Obama. But if the Republicans really have candidates and ideas, they need to sell it and make this stuff what they people see. Moreover, there might be some good Republican leaders, but I still don't trust that Republican base where a lot of people like Palin. The Republicans need to have more than some good people that stand in the center and on principle but also needs a base and public image of moving to the center as well. Otherwise, the Far Right just might nominate nincompoop next election.

      • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 07/02/2009 12:10:18 PM

        Reform is impossible under the current Democrat leadership. In all areas where it has been attempted, with four bills introduced by Flake, two by Boehner, and two by DeMint, Pelosis mafia gunned down all of them.[ indeed, setting up a shouting match between Murtha and Flake, where Flake stood his ground, calling the Pennsylvania Boss Tweed out on his own corruption which led to Murthas famous interview the following morning with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette whereby he exclaimed '' If I am corrupt then so be it'', the Gazette then uncovering the federal investigation of Murthas handlers at PMA, which have dinged four other Democrat lawmakers]. Flake must take his act on the road. I suggested to him that he make himself available at the upcoming Tea Party Pt. II , without a ''FOX'' imprimatur now unfolding across the nation, with this mornings 5th Ave/Broadway event in downtown NYC gathering over a thousand still angry Americans including blacks, who challenged Jeanne Garofalo to come on down and see the ''white racist rednecks'' holding forth.


        www.house.gov

        www.porkbusters.com [esp. earmark/pork reform. As it now stands, the Democrats are hiding Stimulus spending from the American people as both ROLL CALL and POLITICO have noted].

        • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/02/2009 1:28:03 PM

          "Flake must take his act on the road."

          Agreed. The Republicans are never going to win by merely saying that the support fiscal conservatism and have ideals. The public needs to be convinced that the Republicans have real principles and ideas, especially after the Bush years. I know Pelosi and others have been shooting down any Republican ideas. The Republicans need to find other ways to show that they can govern competently.

          If the Republican are vocal and present the public with specific instances of Democrat mismanagement and specific plans to govern better that the public can support (these ideas are key), the Republicans might actually show that they are indeed a party of ideas.

  • Posted By: gvillagran3 @ 06/30/2009 6:21:47 PM

    Libertyfirst.

    Finally!!!! Now you are making sense in the response you gave bkrummel.

    See the difference? Look my friend, I honestly admire people that take the time, and have the honesty to accept mistakes, and act upon them. That's how we grow as individuals.

    If you tell me Washington is the culprit of big spending, then I fully agree.... If you tell me Obama is the culprit of big spending, frankly you are insulting my intelligence and it does make me angry . It might come as a surprise to you, because I certainly don't sound like a Republican, but I have several times voted for Republicans, and I was registered as a Republican up to the McCain Vs. Bush primary. That's when after seeing a war hero (Sen. McCain ) record savaged by the very same party I counted to respect veterans , i had enough.
    The party that glorified service and country , put the hero out for pasture, and embraced the drunk, privilleged, irresponsible Jr. that had Daddy's fixing his messes his entire life. Why did the Republicans did this ? Because the Right Wing considered McCain too much of a compromiser (as if that was a sin ) , and Bush a "religious" man that spoke their language.

    By the time Obama came arround, McCain had no chance. After Bush no Republican had a chance period. You made the observation "We deserted the party by the droves and as a result McCain stood little chance" ..... How true that is. But it was not McCain's fault, after Bush Jesus himself would have had no chance.

    That's what the Right needs to understand. If you guys don't drop the extreme ideas you have, like closing the department of education for example, of criminalizing abortion at a Federal lebel, or all the other nonsense you continue to insist any Republican candidate should suport if he/she stands a chance to win a primary election.... Then the Republican party will become irrelevant.

    If you guys on the Right don't understand that when you elect a president, it is upon YOU, not the Democrats to demand that he/she ACTS upon the agenda and demand accountability, then you'll never be taken seriously by the American people.

    • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 07/02/2009 12:45:14 PM

      gillvillagran3: Little of my message changed; what FINALLY changed was you coming down from the edge long enough to read someone's post. But by the end, I see you fell back on the "extreme" rants again.

      Le t me ask you a few things...

      Based on your stated "logic" are to understand that Obama is not part of Washington and he is NOT spending at a rate four times that of what Bush did?

      That is too "extreme" to consider closing a federal department / agency whose function is redundent to what the States already do but only make much more complicated...that even mentioning that is somehow "extreme?"

      Are we to assume that any and all functions created by the federal government have no end life? That once created, we are stuck with them indefinitely ?...that changing or ending it would be too radical? What about the Rural Electric Cooperative...whose original mission was to bring electricity to all parts of the country. One would assume that their mission has been met; but the agency lives on...spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year. But in your mind, is shutting it down akin to embracing stoning?

      There are lots of other examples, but I'm sure you'd find them way too extreme.

      So what else do I need to understand? That NOT wanting to spend federal tax dollars on subsidizing abortions is extreme? What then do we say to nearly half of America that would say that abortion in itself is extreme?

      As far a criminalizing the act...do you really think that only Right Wing nut jobs want that? I think it not too unlikely that this issue splits out more across religious lines than Party lines....but; to be honest, its not my hot button topic. Nor do I think Roe v Wade is bound for overturning in my lifetime...too many examples of expressed opinion from former and current Justices that would suggest that they see it as fairly settled case law.

      Lastly, based on your last statement...with Obama, is it then only the Dems who must ensure his accountability and agenda? What is the rest of the 49% of the population who did not vote for him supposed to do, now? Shut up and do whatever he asks? Not sure that's what I remember seeing happening during the Bush years. If ever folks were up in arms...those were the days. By the end, even much of his own Party wasn't supporting every issue. What can we expect with Obama Vision and the Democrat Party? Please tell us.


      So what other "extreme" positions do you propose are weighing down the Right?

      Do you acknowledge any 'extreme" positions of the Left? What about taking away my right to transfat? Taking away the right to bear arms? How about extreme environmental protection? Anything? Or is everything that comes from the mouth of 'The Left" simply mainstream and what the rest of us should get in line to accept?


    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/30/2009 7:07:38 PM

      "If you guys on the Right don't understand that when you elect a president, it is upon YOU, not the Democrats to demand that he/she ACTS upon the agenda and demand accountability, then you'll never be taken seriously by the American people."

      How exactly do you propose doing this? I think it is been previously discussed that there is little we can do. To expand on what has been said, if the Republicans screw up, then we either need to vote for the Democrats, who we may strongly disagree with and don't want in power, or ignore that they screwed up and reelect the Republicans. Recently I've opted to acknowledge that my vote really doesn't count, register as an independent before the election, and vote for a third party in protest, and that didn't accomplish a whole lot either. I suppose the Republicans could have held a serious primary in 2004 to have someone other than Bush run. But almost no one ever runs against an incumbent president in the primaries and this risks losing the election.

      Seriously, tell me how to keep them accountable and I will do my part to hold them accountable.

      • Posted By: bighappy @ 07/01/2009 12:30:57 AM

        Even I am a Republican, I never voted for Bush the Moron. I wanted Kerry to win in 2004. That scumbag could not make half a damage Obama is going to make and at the same time would have cured americans from liberal flu. "Doctor" Obama of course will do the same (I mean the cure), but price will be truly disastrous. Unfortunately, Kerry managed to discredit himself with his famous lesbian comment.

        • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/01/2009 3:13:34 AM

          Wait a minute. You wanted Kerry to win so that he could govern incompetently and "cured Americans from liberal flu"?! Um, that might make some twisted sense, but that sounds rather unpatriotic to vote for a president so that he could screw up.

          In any case, the 2004 election between Bush and Kerry was effectively like choosing between Tweedledum or Tweedledee. Either choice sucked.

          Also, I don't think Obama is going to cure Americans of "liberal flu". I think even if Obama's liberal agenda is unsuccessful, people will love Obama and become hooked on liberalism because of it. If the economy recovers for any reason whatsoever by the next election, people will love Obama for it regardless whether the stimulus worked or not. If Obama gets his public health insurance option, people will use it and love it regardless whether or not it was a good idea.

          • Posted By: bighappy @ 07/01/2009 9:20:58 PM

            Was Bush much better than Kerry? Instead of disastrous 4 years now we have 8.
            And don't worry about Obama "success", economy will not rebound till 2013. With such insane solutions - the best case it will stay the same as now for next 4 years, but most likely it will be 20/20 stagflation (20% inflation and 20% unemployment). If against common sense econoimy rebounds under Obama - then dollars grow on your garden trees, and pigs and community organizers can fly.

            • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/01/2009 9:56:08 PM

              I think Bush was better than Kerry, though not by much.

              "...economy will not rebound till 2013."
              That's real bad news. I'm 25 years old and me and a lot of my friends will have trouble building careers if the economy doesn't rebound in a year or two. I'd much rather Obama be a grand success than the economy not rebound by 2013.

              • Posted By: bighappy @ 07/02/2009 12:04:54 AM

                I am sorry, it is not my wish, it is a hard conclusion. Idiot in White House, even mostly incapacitated after 2010 elections, still will scare off all businesses.
                As fo Kerry/ vs. Bush - yes, Kerry would have done a little bit more damage than Bush, but ten we would have had a good President, like Rudy or Romny, not this community organizer.

      • Posted By: bkrummel @ 06/30/2009 11:45:00 PM

        Let me clarify that I want to know how to keep the Republicans accountable since I have stopped supporting them with my vote and choice of registration and I feel the Republicans continue to act incompetent. I really do want to remind the Republican Party that they represent people like me and they need to do a better job of representing us.

    • Posted By: bighappy @ 07/01/2009 12:21:42 AM

      gvillagran3,
      "If you tell me Obama is the culprit of big spending, frankly you are insulting my intelligence ..."
      Seems nothing to insult. If you don't understand difference between $500 billon (Bush deficit) and Obama's $1800 billion (and now we know that Obama is going to spend about $500 more, if Congress allows) - you have only half-brain, the other part with "intelligence long gone. But don't worry, you are still smarter than Obama.
      Unfortunately it became new american tradition to replace morons with idiots.

      • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/01/2009 3:17:03 AM

        If we replaced Bush the moron with Obama the idiot, who are we going to replace Obama with? A Republican nincompoop? Do the Republicans even have a future presidential candidate worth voting for?

        • Posted By: bighappy @ 07/01/2009 9:15:07 PM

          Rudy will be very good choice. He proved that he can both restore economy, fight against crime, and keep his cool in desperate situations. Romny also will fit. I have doubts about Palin.

    • Posted By: bjsassy @ 06/30/2009 9:03:47 PM

      gvilla. Are you demanding accountability from your president? It appears that you are drinking the Kool-aid.

  • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/02/2009 2:08:59 AM

    Paulejb, in response to the fact that I would "refuse to vote for someone merely because they disagree with you on social issues" and your reply that "Never would have thought of you as a "one issue" voter, BK" - Social issues are not just one issues. There are a number of issues: gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research, teaching evolution vs. creationism, school prayer, and intolerance of atheists like myself. I very, very strongly disagree with the Religious Right on these issues. I think that gays should marry. That abortion should remain legal and the Right has no real policy for banning or regulating abortion. That stem cell research is exciting and should be supported rather than restricted. That only science should be taught in the science class and, since evolution is science and creationism (or intelligent design) isn't, only evolution should be taught. I don't think I should be compelled to pray in public considering I don't believe in God.
    I simply cannot support political candidates who will impose a social agenda that I disagree with and infringes on me and my friends freedoms, especially when they can't deliver on other issues that I may agree with them on. Would I vote against these people over the many issues in this social agenda? Absolutely.

    Believing this does not make me a bigot. I strongly believe in individual liberty and have come to my social positions as a consequence of that belief. Gays and women who feel the need to get an abortion should be free to live their lives as they wish without religious people imposing their views on gays or women. It's their lives and not everyone else's. I am not a bigot for preventing people from imposing their narrow-minded views on others. Religious people can still worship freely. They can still impart their values on their children. I don't think having gay married neighbors or abortion clinics distracts from their kids learning their values, though I think the kids will be exposed to alternate values anyways and will chose their own values ultimately. The Religious people are free to live their lives. I and my friends, including the gay ones, are free to live ours.

  • Posted By: bjsassy @ 07/01/2009 9:59:58 PM

    Breitbart.tv - White House Reporters Grill Gibbs Over ???Prepackaged??? Questions for Obama. Play the You Tube video. Chip Reid and Helen Thomas (of all people) gave Robert Gibbs a hard time. Gibbs evaded most of the questions.

    Newsbusters: "First Reid asked why the questions for Wednesday's town hall on healthcare were being preselected. After Gibbs tried to dodge that question a few times, Thomas became involved, saying, 'We have never had that in the White House. I???m amazed that you people ??? call for openness and transparency." Thomas also told CNS News that she was especially concerned about an arrangement from the Obama Administration and a writer from the liberal Huggington Post. The writer would ask Obama a specific qustion on Iran at a press conference last week.

    At last, the press may be getting fed-up with the One. Funny, I looked on MSNBC, CBS and ABC websites and did not see anything about the testy confrontation and didn't see anything about it. Can you imagine the coverage if Bush had done this?

  • Posted By: DrewCAENG @ 07/01/2009 8:50:25 PM

    WELL it looks like you believed Bush would end abortioin and stop gay rights, if I were you I'd feel tricked and be mad as hell. which was my point - you got tricked into voting for social values.

    I have read your posts and cant find ONE thing that improved under W maybe you could stop dancing around the issue, trying to pawn off blame on the dems and just lay it on me? ONE THING - its very simple

    If you think that it hadnt crossed their minds that incumbents get re-elected during war time when they were planning the Iraq BS war (before 9/11 mind you) then you are are probably the same person who took out a 115% mortgage.

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/01/2009 9:51:15 PM

      "WELL it looks like you believed Bush would end abortioin and stop gay rights, if I were you I'd feel tricked and be mad as hell."
      No, I never considered the social issues to be big issues until recently and I never thought that the Republicans would be successful at the social issues, so I tended to ignore them. More recently I've taken more of an interest in the social issues and am thrilled that the Republicans are losing the battle. I totally support gay rights, abortion right, teaching evolution, and stem cell research. Also, I want the Republicans to return to fiscal conservatism. The sooner the social conservatives completely lose the culture war the better.

      "ONE THING - its very simple"
      As I explained before, answering this question is obviously not worth my or anyone else's time.

      "If you think that it hadnt crossed their minds that incumbents get re-elected during war time when they were planning the Iraq BS war..."
      This is conspiracy theory nonsense. I think you are very wrong on this. But I've said this before and explaining that the Bush didn't enter Iraq to get reelected isn't worth my time.

  • Posted By: DrewCAENG @ 07/01/2009 8:34:11 PM

    Good points, however remember not all Dems supported Iraq including your current president. If the GOP had won we would have stayed for "100 years" or however long it took to get the job done, whatever that means. Lets not forget the ferverent nationalism that was sweeping the country after 9/11 anybody opposed to Iraq was basicaly labeled a communist. That being said the Dems needed to grow some balls on that issue but the GOP sure was good at making people look unpatriotic if they didnt agree with Bush.

    As for gun rights and Gay rights you cant compare people to inatimate objects. The 2nd amendment if studied says that guns should belong to a well formed militia, which if looked at under a historical lense makes a lot of sense. Today this does not translate into the avg. hillbillly.

    If the GOP had their way we would never get off big oil "Drill Baby Drill?" Maybe its because they are all in the pockets of big oil and have been destroying alt. energy for years. Regean proudly ripping solar panals off the white house roof!

    As for the budget most Economists will say that stimulus is needed to pull a country out of recession, nobody wants to dig us deeper into debt but whats the alternative, letting our bridges and cities sink? Returning education to the states is what Obama tried to do in a way, but certain scandelous governors pulled political movie magic and refused to accept stimulus cash for education but didnt have any problem using gov money to fly to S. America for a quicky.

    I understand the fear of socialism, I have lived in Europe and it is a wellfair nightmare, hard working people pay 40% tax and it is impossible to save. However they do have many things better then us, like health care and lower crime rates. We all were tricked by the Chicago school Friedman economists into thinking that big gov was evil and happily traded that for big profit drivin corporations. Who would you rather have in charge of your health someone who is elected or someone who is driving for profit and has to answer to nobody but shareholders?

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/01/2009 9:44:34 PM

      "Returning education to the states is what Obama tried to do in a way..."
      "In a way"?! Really?! By doing what, offering federal stimulus money? Did Obama get rid of or significantly reform NCLB or the Deptartment of Education yet? I have heard nothing to suggest that Obama intends to return education to the states. In fact, a big part of Obama's agenda is education reform (see his effective State of the Union).


      "I understand the fear of socialism, I have lived in Europe and it is a wellfair nightmare, hard working people pay 40% tax and it is impossible to save. However they do have many things better then us, like health care and lower crime rates."
      The 40% tax is probably to pay for things like health care and the police. If you complain about a 40% tax and then ask for the US government to provide the same services as countries with a 40% tax, you are contradicting yourself.

      "Who would you rather have in charge of your health someone who is elected or someone who is driving for profit and has to answer to nobody but shareholders?"
      Well, is the elected official going to manage my health care responsibly? Or is the elected official going to provide health care as another big entitlement program that gets mismanaged and we never reform? And is the elected official going to manage my health care based on how he can pander to various interest group? At least the businessman has to have a solvent business or go bankrupt and can't just pass it on to the debt. Also, I'd much rather yell at customer service over the phone or pay extra for better service than deal with a government bureaucrat.

      If the government can convince me that it can properly manage health care and provide good service, they can do health care. Right now I'm just not convinced.

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/01/2009 9:44:21 PM

      "If the GOP had won we would have stayed for "100 years""
      John McCain said this refering to the fact that we have had US troops in a number of countries (example: Japan) for a number of years now. The issue isn't if we had troops in Iraq but rather at what troop levels and with what levels of violence in Iraq. If McCain got elected, the US would still be winding down the troops right now because the Iraqis are capable of taking care of their own country with less US assistance.

      "As for gun rights and Gay rights you cant compare people to inatimate objects."
      This is a silly comment. You can compare gun owners and gays. To deny people individual liberty to live their lives without justification is simply wrong.

      "The 2nd amendment if studied says that guns should belong to a well formed militia, which if looked at under a historical lense makes a lot of sense. Today this does not translate into the avg. hillbillly."
      This does seem to be an accurate interpretation of the Constitution. I still think people should be allowed to freely own guns, after some basic regulation of course. I get the feeling that a lot of people like myself who didn't grow up around guns have this skewed view of guns being owned by hillbilly gun nuts and murders. Most people who own guns are good people who know how to use a gun properly and safely and take pride in how they use a gun. Just because we feel uncomfortable with guns and a very small group of people misuse guns doesn't mean we get to restrict the gun use of responsible gun owners.

      Recently the GOP has been tauting an "all the above" energy policy. I don't know if that is just politics, but I want an "all the above" energy policy. There is no reason we can't acquire more oil and other fossil fuels while doing alternative energy. It is clear that if the Democrats, esp. Pelosi and Gore, got their way we would focus exclusively on alternative energy and neglect fossil fuels. Let's drill baby drill in ANWAR and elsewhere while doing alternatives. Anything less is a bad energy policy.

      "As for the budget most Economists will say that stimulus is needed to pull a country out of recession, nobody wants to dig us deeper into debt but whats the alternative, letting our bridges and cities sink?"
      Fine by me. We need to rebuild our infrastructure anyways. Only, did the stimulus go straight to things like the economy as a whole and infrastructure, or did some of it go to pet projects and Obama's agenda? Yes we needed a stimulus, the question is what type. Anyways, this has been decided and the money is being spent, so let's just hope this works and we can find ways to pay for the stimulus.

  • Posted By: DrewCAENG @ 07/01/2009 7:55:11 PM

    WOW what an argument. Are you kidding me man? He won by about 20,000 votes and he was lucky enough to have fear on his side. Its called fear mongering, that and a combination of lies he told to his moronic base that actually believed he would stop abortions and send all gays to hell. Its also been historicaly hard to beat an incumbent during war time, maybe one of a hundred motives he and his cronnies had for invading Iraq?

    Im still waiting for ONE thing that improved or at least didnt go to hell under W. I assume you'll avoid that.

    • Posted By: bkrummel @ 07/01/2009 8:29:24 PM

      "...he told to his moronic base that actually believed he would stop abortions and send all gays to hell."
      Good thing that Bush never stopped abortions and gays are starting to marry then.

      "Its also been historically hard to beat an incumbent during war time, maybe one of a hundred motives he and his cronnies had for invading Iraq?"
      Right, Bush invaded Iraq so that he could get reelected (sarcasm). That is just nonsense.

      "I'm still waiting for ONE thing that improved or at least didn't go to hell under W. I assume you'll avoid that."
      We told you a number of things Bush did right. We got no responses from you other than this "I'm still waiting for ONE thing" crap. Clearly, responding to you would just be a waste of time. You are just going to ignore any "ONE thing" we mention and continue to hate and say substance-less crap.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse