Me too!

Me three!!

We can HOPE.

Yes, heaven forbid we have intelligent rational folks in office! Palin/O'Donnell 2012--Dumb and Dumber leading the Dumbest!

Bye bye Russ and Obama ??? Hello third world country.

bye bye to Obama in 2012!

Correction, bye bye to Obama in 2016! He's going to be missed. :(

Some day you will be sorry you were ever taken in. Obama is a very smart caring President if you can get past your obsession with race!

you betcha!! and I am not winking! We are very lucky.. and he is the one who will be able to speak with the other nations during this scary time of terrorists and craziness. Thank God Repubs are not waving our six guns .. or off to another war we would go!

This is quite a challenge. Alright, let me think about this for a sec.

We could do without roads. Horses are quite comfortable. Of course if I had to ride a horse all the time, I'd sure need more money put into health care to help me deal with my allergy problems.

Schools are another thing we could do without. After the way Bush left Texas schools, students aren't learning much in them anyway. So yes, let's cut schools.

The weather service can go. Let's face it, the only people who actually believe in environmental sciences are those wacky liberals anyway. We can just get our weather from the internet.

Universities will need a lot more money since we're eliminating schools.

Road crews for road repair can go. We're going to be riding horses with fanny packs of Sudafed, remember?

Ambulances will be gone, since we won't have any roads anymore. They'll just have to start using helicopters for emergency calls. The same goes for fire trucks.

So what if these changes wouldn't make for a great country. It would be an awesome setting for a post-apoc thriller.

How incredibly tragic, you are.

Go slick your black hair to the side and mope somewhere else.

Me? I'm FIRED UP, and I'm not voting for your Emo bullsh*t.

when hope finally dies, action begins

hope is for cancer patients, it's not an option for running the country

we need action not hope

Too bad that the only "action" that repubs are promising the voters is doing all they can to oppose the president on everything he proposes so they can beat him in 2012. Unemployed? Too bad, Boehner and his buddies are too busy saying "No" to waste time with your petty concerns. Tired of seeing your jobs outsourced, and seeing 25% of US corporations not paying any taxes at all? Tough! The corporations tell the repubs when to jump and how high, and the last thing they want to do is anything that would stop them from ripping off the citizenry at every chance. Not happy with the budget deficit? Nothing you can do about it, because repubs want more tax cuts for the rich and the corporations, and they say they don't need to pay the trillions that those tax cuts will cost.

If you're thinking that repubs will take any action to solve any of our nation's most pressing issues, you are sadly mistaken. Taking action would mean making tough decisions that they will not want to take in the run up to 2012. Repubs run away from responsibility; it's in their DNA.

Holy Crap Kathi>>> Plagiarize much?>>> That entire monotribe was stolen from a 2006 article. You are a friggin thief,,, But worse yet,,,an unimaginitive one. You should be arrested for theft. Why dont you cite whom you stole this from before I do.

oh too bad! I got that cute little Allstate mayhem guy! :)

Dean Winters is cute? Who'da thunk that?

Jamie, exactly what harm has the administration done? Could it be the Wall Street bailout? That would belong to the Bush administration. The stimulus bill? It prevented the recession from turning into a depression. The healthcare bill? All it has done is stop insurers from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions and dropping people when they get sick and try to use their insurance. If you want to undo harm, then we need to undo the harm done by the Bush administration: two wars that have cost a total of over 5,000 American lives, and an economic disaster unparalleled since the Great Depression. Wake up Jamie before it is too late.

Going on the premise that you can't prove a negative, can you imagine the harm, the world of hurt we'd be in right now had the opponent been elected? Gives me the chills...

Agreed.

Amen,

But you are willing to ignore the fact that Bush took a budget surplus and was actually able to turn it into an ever-increasing record deficit in his first year in office?

Let's see if you can name the last repub president that submitted a balanced budget....I'm betting it was long before either of us was born. I certainly recall the last dem president to submit a balanced budget: Bill Clinton.

Democrats will lose tomorrow because the voters want instant results for a problem that took years to create. Come 2012, they'll turn on repubs when they haven't solved the problems in two years either. The sword cuts two ways.

The Democrats are going to lose tomorrow because on issue after issue after issue, they went against the collective will of the people. They, obviously, know that - which is why almost none of them are running on their records of the past two years. If they're so proud of their 'accomplishments' (health care overhaul, stimulus, etc) - why aren't they tooting their horn??

A small majority of the electorate (53%) was willing to give an idealistic young man the reigns of the country - because during the campaign he claimed to be a centrist - and a unifier...and he has turned out to be the complete opposite.

Tomorrow's election is going to be a referendum on our President and his party...and it's going to be a political bloodbath...

Poppycock to practically everything you posted.

A small majority of the electorate (53%)? That was far larger than the margin that Bush had in 2000, (where he actually lost the popular vote quite handily), yet he claimed to have a "mandate" from the people. So, if losing the popular vote by a large margin is enough to have a mandate, what does actually winning the vote give you??

Repubs have been doing an excellent job of running on falsehoods. They rant about the "government takeover of healthcare"....despite the fact that the government TOOK OVER NOTHING. There was no single payer or public option implemented or even attempted, DESPITE the fact that poll after poll showed that LARGE MAJORITIES of Americans wanted at least a public option. In other words, they wanted some form of government takeover, got none, and then repubs run on something that never even was considered! Pretty slick misdirection there.

They run on "fiscal responsibility", despite the fact that in the 6 years from 2001-2006 when they controlled the presidency and BOTH houses of Congress, they ran up RECORD deficits. Funny how they never spoke for a second of "fiscal responsibility" when they were controlling the checkbook and writing bad checks.

I hope that the public puts repubs back in control of the House, so they can see that these perpetual whiners have absolutely no idea of how to solve any of the problems that they created. Repubs have proven adept at whining and blaming anyone but themselves for the problems they create, yet are totally unable to actually govern.

Yes, a small majority. I view 53% as a small majority no matter who's elected. Nobody - conservative or liberal - has a 'mandate' with 53% of the vote. The last President I would give that to would be Reagan in 1984 - when he won every single state but one...THAT would be a mandate.

If what I said was such 'poppycock,' why aren't Democrats running on their sterling records of voting on the 'stimulus' bill? - or the 'healthcare bill?' All they do is run ads demonizing their opponents.

The 'stimulus' bill was nothing more than the most colossal government spending program of all time. It was a 'spending' bill - renamed a 'stimulus' bill to falsely give the naive 'hope.' It wasn't designed to 'stimulate' anything. Nobody in congress had a chance to read it; Obama urged everybody to vote for it immediately in order to 'save the country.'

More than anything else this man did during his first two years in office, this was the grossest by far.

Fortunately, the American public has been catching on.....one, of course, never would know if they get their 'news' from listening to Rachel Maddow.

John, what do you think the stimulus was really for? Why would Obama want to spend the nation's for no reason? I'm sincerely curious what you think everyone who supported the stimulus was really up to.

John, as I have noted on another thread, dems are chickens***s for not running on their successes, like healthcare reform. As for the stimulus, it's biggest failure was putting in a bunch of tax cuts at the demand of repubs, tax cuts that only made problems worse. I notice repubs ran away from Bush's TARP bill too, a bill that practically all of them voted for, DESPITE the fact that many of them say they were rushed into passing it without being able to read it. The same occurred with that other Bush "triumph", the Patriot Act, the bill of which repub Sen. Sessions said , "I don't know what's in the bill, and I don't want to know what's in the bill".

Methinks repubs are either very slow readers, or just too lazy to even have their staffs look through the bills. Apparently "The Pet Goat" was above the reading level of most of them, not just Bush.

So you basically think this is a socialist plot rather than the more believable reason given which is that spending--anyone spending--is what makes the economy grow? On the brink of depression, the federal government is the only one who could spend.

Do you think Democrats in general are trying to make this a socialist country, and if so could you give an example of another socialist country you think it's going to turn into if Democrats succeed? And why you think Democrats would want it to be that way?

Do you think Paul Krugman, nobel prize winner for economics, is a socialist too?

Also, what is your definition of socialism?

He'll get right back to you...as soon as he can find an opinion piece with the answers that he can cut and paste.

GrrrlRomeo, the term 'socialist plot' sounds devious...

but since the health care bill was rammed through Congress literally via backroom deals and arm twisting...

and involved taxpayers' money (at least the 60% of the country who pay federal taxes)...

and that the Congress exempted themselves and their top associates from ever having to participate in this nonsense (you'd think since they wrote it - and if it was such a wonderful piece of legislation, they'd be the first in line to contribute! - but I learned a long time ago that liberals always want to spend OTHER people's money)...

I think I've come to believe that, yes, it IS a 'socialist plot' - and a plot that these ridiculous Democrats that are running for office don't have the guts to admit that they even voted for it. They're too keen on demonizing their opponents than telling their constituency, 'Vote for me! I voted to give you free health care!!'

Paul Krugman? Well, he writes for the leftist New York Times, has extremely leftwing views, feels that the stimulus was 'too small' - and that we needed another one (!)...so, is he a socialist? His views, of course, are certainly socialistic; I'll leave it to him to define himself.

I'm into clarity; I'm NOT into demonizing people...

Well john, you make it sound devious. Why would half the American people want something that would hurt the country? The Democrats did nothing that hasn't been done before to get health care passed.

Congress didn't opt out anything in the bill. The health care reform bill did not contain a public plan. It's not universal health care. It regulates the health insurance industry with new rules. But the government has not taken over the health insurance industry. That thing people were so afraid of, Medicare for all, never happened. It's not in there.

Democrats aren't running on things they've passed because Republicans have characterized those things as "socialistic."

Since you believe it is a socialist plot, I don't suppose it would be obvious to you that the Republicans have demonized their opponents, the Democrats, by claiming they're socialists and people think socialists are evil?

I'm still wondering what your definition of socialism is. And if you're worried that the country is going to become like Canada or the UK, or something darker. And if something darker, why on earth would Democrats want that? We're all still Americans and have to live in this country. Why would we want to make our country...bad.

You haven't reach clarity yet. I want to know what you think Democrats would get out of turning the country into some sort of dystopia. What is their goal?

What I fear is that the Republicans are only concerned with winning the next election rather than anything long term for the country. And that shortsightedness is going to cost us dearly in the next decade.

All governments tax and spend. And the reason for the stimulus is because we were on the verge of a depression. We were looking at financial collapse with the bank bailouts. We've been saved from something much worse. And our recovery would be quicker with a bigger stimulus. It's not socialism....not by any definition.

Public education, social security, Medicare, the GI bill...these things have been around for a long time and I don't know why people would be worried about these types of things ruining the country now.

Oh one other thing, john. You said that liberals always want to spend other people's money. Are you assuming that liberals are all lower class and thus not paying federal income tax? Paul Krugman is probably pretty well off, and so that is his tax money. You can come up with quite a few liberals who make over $50,000, right?

I'm certain Democrats are paying as much federal income tax as anyone else, and so they have every bit as much of a say in where it goes.

joybar, thanks for the demonization. You, of course, contributed nothing - just offered up demonizing, racist comments.

It's not just Republicans that are 'scared;' it's a large swath of people across the country. Recent polls show that upwards of 75% (!) believe that the country is on the wrong track. We both know that isn't just 'Republicans.'

People believe the government has spent too much, that the government has voted against the collective will of the people (at least the Dems), people have little confidence in our President (the man's poll numbers have declined consistently since he took office - and are now in the thirties).

Race, of course, has nothing to do with how they feel - and it's a heinous accusation to make; a racist one.

You want to know how I feel? One of my mentors in life, Shelby Steele, had a marvelous essay late last week. Like Dennis Prager, he's capable of communicating what I believe better than I can.....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304173704575578363243019000.html

Cheers! I'm off to vote tomorrow....

Thanks for ruining what could've been a civil debate, joy. I wasn't trying to change john's mind, I'm just trying to understand it.

No, you didn't demonize any more than others - but that, of course, doesn't make it right.

Demonization adds nothing to civil discourse.

If anything, it's an excuse to avoid discussion of issues. I've discovered when people resort to name-calling ('sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, bigot'), they apparently aren't interested in seeking truth; they simply want to demonize. I hear those terms from the lips of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow all the time.

I appreciate GrrlRomeo's perspective. Quite frankly, it mirrors my own. She's interested in civil discussion - as am I. I'm interested in clarity - not agreement.

Dennis Prager has a great column from last week on today's election. Again, his perspective reflects my views. For those of us who are genuinely interested in understanding, I offer it up here:

"This Is a Referendum, Not an Election
Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Next Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010 is not Election Day. It is Referendum Day.

It may be commonplace for commentators to announce that every election is "the most important election in our lifetime" or something analogous. But having never said that of a presidential election, let alone an off-year election, this commentator cannot be accused of crying wolf when I say that this off-year election is not simply the most important of my lifetime. It is the most important since the Civil War.

The reason is that unlike all previous elections, this one is actually a referendum on the direction of the United States of America.

If the Democrats win:

-- The American people have announced, consciously or not, that they support the Democratic Party's "fundamental transformation" -- those were President Obama's words when he campaigned, and he has lived up to them

-- of America from a liberty-based state of limited government into an equality-based welfare state with an ever-expanding government.

-- America will change from a country that emphasizes producing wealth to a country that emphasizes redistribution of wealth.

The left has never been primarily interested in creating wealth. Its primary goal always and everywhere has been to redistribute it. That so many businessmen and much of Wall Street are only now awakening to this fact is only a testament to the staggering lack of wisdom in big business.

-- America will produce increasingly narcissistic citizens.

For proof, just look at the virtual shutdown of much of France and the ubiquitous rioting of vast numbers of its citizens over a tiny change in its welfare state -- raising the age of retirement from 60 to 62. The idea that one will work two more years before receiving benefits until death so offends vast numbers of French -- including young people who have every reason to believe they will live until the age of 100 -- that they are fighting it as if their very lives were in jeopardy. That is the self-centeredness that all welfare states engender in their citizens.

-- America will further reinforce the conviction that minorities are victims -- who must be protected from their fellow Americans by the state.

Latinos, blacks, Muslims, gays and vast numbers of women have been told by the left and its political party that they are all persecuted by a country that is SIXHIRB -- Sexist, Intolerant, Xenophobic, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Racist and Bigoted. That America is the least SIXHIRB country in the world is a fact that has been all but drowned out by the left-wing domination of television and print news media, all the entertainment media, and the high schools and universities.

-- America will continue to undermine its unique ability to Americanize people of all ethnic, national, racial, and religious backgrounds.

With a Democratic victory the country's very motto -- E Pluribus Unum, "Out of Many One" -- will continue to erode as ethnic and racial identities rather one American identity are increasingly celebrated. Germany's chancellor Angela Merkel has just announced that Germany's experiment with multiculturalism has "utterly failed," but the left and its political party, the Democrats, have redoubled their efforts to supplant E Pluribus Unum with multiculturalism.

-- America will continue its economic slide.

With a Democratic victory, unsustainable debts will mount, wealth-producing companies will continue to flee from higher taxes and more regulations, energy use will be taxed in the name of environmentalist utopianism, and the government will continue to print dollars.

-- America will become increasingly secular.

With a Democratic victory, the left's goal of rendering America's other motto, "In God We Trust," an anachronism will come closer to fruition. Leftism is a jealous god. As in Western Europe, the Judeo-Christian roots of this country are ceasing to play the indispensible moral role they have played since before 1776.

And what would constitute a Democrat victory next Tuesday? Anything other than a Republican landslide. Any other result will be interpreted by the media and by the Democrats as solely a result of the economic recession and as the normal losses of the dominant party in off-year elections.

In other words, the only way to ensure that the electoral results are seen as a repudiation of the growth of the state and the other Democrat and leftist goals is through an enormous Republican victory.

Only then will America understand that this election was not first about jobs. It was above all about America."

It's amazing anyone takes the time to listen to Prager's claptrap. It is chock full of ridiculous stereotypes, assumptions, and just plain illogical assertions. I won't bother going through it point by point, because I have no desire to write another doctoral dissertation. All I will say is that those who believe all his points are reality-averse, and are certainly not interested in civil discourse. After all, if democrats were really as evil, misguided and/or incompetent as Mr. Prager apparently believes, I wouldn't want to have any discourse at all with them.

If you want to believe the garbage that Mr. Prager produced, fine. It's a free country, and everyone is entitled to an opinion. Unfortunately, if you are interested in actual facts and reality, they will clash with everything he had to say.

Joybar, to some extent I think we all have areas in our thinking where we are unable or unwilling to recognize actual, provable facts. Although I'm sure that this has been going on from the beginning of civilization, I think that it has gotten worse in our information age. We'd like to think that with basically limitless information available from sources such as the internet that we would be able to find the truth about any subject, but the fact of the matter is that this wealth of information is overwhelming, making it difficult to winnow out facts from opinion. You have to figure out which sources you believe to be credible. Anyone on any side of a given issue can find justification for that position with a quick internet search.

I believe Obama is one of the most intelligent men ever to hold the office of President, certainly in a different league than most we have had in the past century. Where he seems to be stumbling now is in the one area I never would have thought possible. He is doing a subpar job of communicating with the public. If he had shown even half the brilliance, passion and ability to inspire during things like the healthcare debate as he did during his campaign, we could have had a public option or even a single payer system. He needs to find a way to reconnect with the American people, to help them understand what he has accomplished and still wants to accomplish. With the House likely falling to repubs, this ability to communicate will be absolutely vital, as the lies and deception practiced by the right wing will rachet up to unprecedented levels over the next two years.