Oh, yes, Ron, during the campaign we were fed a steady diet of spin-Obama was 'cool under pressure' during the Georgian crisis, (which was the explanation for why he had nothing to say for 3 days; made an inane, incomprehensible statement on day 4; then, finally, came out with something comprehensible-but wrong-a week later); however

this gulf spill has revealed for all that the truth is not that he is cool-he is immobilized by any crisis more complicated than not getting his preferred tee-time. The only reason he did the right thing and fired McChrystal is that McChrystal had the unmitigated gall to actually criticize him. As I said yesterday, it was the right thing to do-I don't know who convinced him to put Petraeus in charge, another correct decision, but tht person deserves a medal-but the REASON he was able to make such a quick decision is problematic.

The man is a narcissist.

Look at what is going on in the Gulf. there is no direction, the only decisions being made, after days, are wrong,(shutting down the dredging because environmentalists think tht sand is worse than oil), taking OHMSETT off-line for maintenance,(with no scheduled tests of any containment methods, anyway); failing to waive the Jones Act, and telling the Dutch 'thanks, but no thanks' when they offered help immediately after the blow,(can't upset the unions,can we?); his signature decision on this matter was to take to the airwaves to tell the public that it was all Bush's fault, and he would use it to push through cap and trade. Not surprisingly, that was another epic fail.

I probably shouldn't remind you that his concerts, golf games, and fundraising junkets are all helping to tank his presidency. The trouble is, his priorities are inside out,upside down, and backwards. He is more interested in the perks of the presidency than actually being the president.

he does not admit failure. His approach to Iran and North Korea did not work? Just ignore it and go golfing. His stimulous did not improve the job picture? Make up some nonsense about providing 600,000 jobs last summer, ignore that failure, go take in a ballgame. Keep the photo ops coming,the meet and greets with celebrities and sports figures, and, when all else fails, blame it on Bush.

Obama himself provided proof of his misguided priorities: during his press conference, when asked about Birnbaum's termination, he stated that he knew nothing about it, as he had been 'busy doing other things' that morning. He was meeting with the U.S soccer team. and the Duke men's basketball team.

Someone during the campaign compared him to Paris Hilton. Sadly, he or she was right.

I'm telling you Ron... NJNB got a 'thing' for you! ;0)

Feisty: I knew I would get under her skin this morning...I think "a poor understanding of human nature or a poor judge of character" did the trick. She fails on both counts.

Nice Job Ron... The large mouth bass fell for it 'hook line & sinker' ;0))

Sleeping With the Enemy, the Neocons

As far as I'm concerned, General McChrystal's disrespect is no different from the disrespect that the President receives from the GOP and the media on a minute by minute basis. It's who they are. Disrespect. At all times. The General was just mirroring what the rest of the GOP have been doing for years - whether it be Bolton, Liz and Dick, Kristol, Hannity, Beck, Krauthammer, Malkin, Inghram, Tancredo, and on and on. They showed absolutely NO respect for Iraq. And they have no intention of showing this President any respect. This is who the GOP are. They are all in lock step. Against this President and this country.

You line up with the neocons and it's going to get you into trouble if you're in a responsible position. The neocons will steer you right off a cliff, as they did with the General, who has more or less been branded for life now. A great career tarnished. Because he was part of the negative echo chamber of the media who worship the neocons.

You would have thought the General would know better. Military leadership v. civilian leadership. It's a difficult relationship. Eisenhower knew that if he was going to win WWII, he had to be respectful of the civilian leadership in public. Which he was at all times.

And in WWII, many many things in fact did go wrong. As did happen in the Civil War and the Revolutionary War.

Dear Mr. Ron,

How is it that your post seems to lead off this "first thoughts " section daily? Do you have a relationship with whoever administers the site, or do you have some other means of being first?

More likely NJ is the narcissist but the spin put forth is entertaining. "we're all Georgians" don't you know. Neither McCain or Obama was president but only Obama respected that Pres Bush was in charge and tried to stay away from offering opinion when Bush needed to make whatever decision or comment was required.

Diogenes: I don't have much push or pull. I simply pay attention. Feisty is the one you should talk to...in a respectful manner of course.

One more word to NJNB, and then I think I have spent exactly all the time in my life that I plan on spending with her. I have spent a lifetime working in the field of Developmental Disabilities, Mental Illness and Dual Diagnosis. Narcissism is a Clinical term, used after testing, interview and observations. You minimize families and individuals who have this disorder when you throw a term around that you clearly do not understand. Kindly refrain from doing that in the future.

All right, Jody-if your view is that Obama did the right thing because he was not the president at the time, explain, please, why the same pattern is repeated with every single crisis now that he is the president?

And, please, spare me the 'thoughtful reflection' nonsense. He's flummoxed by any problem more complicated than what tie to wear.

Sorry but I don't understand either portion of your reply. I will assume that you are simply an early riser who prepares their remarks prior to the "first thoughts" posting and hits "post comment" like the Sundance Kid could hit a silver dollar.

As to addressing those here in a respectful manner; Do you READ the comments posted on this site? They are evidence that common courtesy is the product of a bygone era. Diogenes is alas, also the product of a bygone era...

My apologies Diogenes: You are respectful and I was a bit snarky. Yes, I write my comments before 9:00. I try to keep current so my comments are relevant.

"How is it that your post seems to lead off this "first thoughts " section daily? Do you have a relationship with whoever administers the site, or do you have some other means of being first?"

Diogenes- you haven't figgured it out? Ron's a "Me Firster" who also goes by the name of Bill.

OK, Ron- just kidding. Actually, I like that you are usually first, because your posts are a good read, and it lets the rest of us enjoy 'em sooner. Keep up the good work.

Dear Ron,

No offense taken; I didn't realize that you were being "snarky". My thinking is that you tend to lose the ability to make your point, even the most obvious and valid statements of fact, when you use derogatory terms and names as a form of rebuttal.

I think No Joe No Bo is upset because the President didn't decide to bomb a foreign country that had nothing to do with the BP oil spill.

No Joe. Got to you didn't I. I don't have to explain. You have a right to your opinion and to express it. Your problem is that you think Pres Obama should make every decision according to your timeline and in accordance with your rules and in the process you ignore that Pres Bush often did not respond until days later and so what. Pres Obama has issued brief statements immediately after an event, just as did Bush; followed by formal remarks once the details and facts are in place, just as Bush did.

Good Morning Fiesty I voted on this,

You know I dont buy the right wing nuts talking point worrying about their childrens' future. If they have taken their "Family Values" slogan to heart, then their children will be able to handle what life hands them. If you give your children a good education and reinforce the values that make a person, decent, kind and considerate of their fellow man, they will do well in life. All of those things show how much you love them.

So for all their yelling about their monetary inheritance, it means nothing if you don't have a value on the other things in life.... such as the environment and all its beauty and richness. That you can't make more of.

I agree. End our addiction to oil now! We shoulf use alternative sources. Like say, wind or solar power. Then years down the road from now, the same people will be complaining about the evil solar companies and wind companies. I can see you all now with your signs protesting "Wind International Inc" ....."Hell No We Won't Blow!" or "Shoot The Breeze!!!"

Until then, ride a bike and live in a teepee.

CU F- You're a real turkey, you know that? What we need to do is save what oil is left for the petro chem industires for thngs like lubricants, fertilizers, plastics, etc. And let the other countries run out of oil, then turn to US in need.

But nooooooooo.....the get-rich-crowd can't have that.

Thanks GM for elaborating on the what about the children cr@p! I was trying to keep my temper in check! ;0)

There is only one Mother Earth and right NOW she’s pissed!

Mother Earth doesn't even know we (humans) exist. The Earth has survived asteroid and comet hits, lava flows, being frozen, being boiled and everything in between. The Earth was here before we showed up, and will be here when we go extinct. That's the trouble with you liberals, you take the human race way too seriously.

Visit www.sowal.com/video to see the Florida beaches as they once were. So sad.

That was my point, drive-by. I believe people really do worry about the enviroment, mideast politics etc...when it comes to oil. I do too. I would like nothing more than to make it so NO MORE oil would ever again be leaked/spilled and cause this kind of disater. That would be fantastic. I would also like to see a day when we didn't need to buy oil from the worthless, backwards-ass Saudis and their ilk.

But I can't help but feel that a LOT of liberals hatred toward oil companies is rooted in the same thing that a lot of other liberal hatred is rooted in: that people are just making too much damn $$$. Can't have that, can we?

Feisty: Vey well said. You deserve a green star

WOW, good morning. the repugs have themselves between an oil rig and hard place. To call out BP would mean they support our President. Not going to happen. Why are the pundits not yelling about where are the repugs on this problem. I still have heard very little from any repug about the spill. Cantor the morning on the morning schmo show defended Barton, he apologized so n=move on, it is not about what he said, even though he apologized but wasstill tweeting that he was right, got caught and had to take the tweet down. I am convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that these people are morally and ethically corrupt. Money and power is their God and screw the rest of us. President Obama also showed his leadership skills in removing McChrystal. The General hadto go in that he grossly undermined his command. This is abig military NO NO.

Well JoAnna, let's hope that Mother Earth lasts long enough to survive are human abuse. If we don't change our ways it won't.

You are trying to compare natural events to those made by man. Would you also compare a hurricane to a nuclear bomb?? What an idiot.

JoAnna

You write like it is not big deal if mankind brings about its own demise. As stewards of this earth, aren't we supposed to take care of it? Yes, we will eventually go extinct and yes the earth will continue..but I would personally not like to go extinct in the next few years. Call me selfish but I want my grandkids to be able to breathe the air and have a life that is not extinquished in a few short years.

Gosh JoAnn - are you a republican and a scientist? i thought you all were banned from all that scientific nonsense!

For once, I agree with you, but it is not the liberals who do not believe the science, it is the conservatives who do not belive it and fight it at every level. Perhaps that is why they don't care anything about the earth?

We could all be better visitors here (and that is all we are when you think about it, can't take that big old house, hundreds of acres of land, your car, furniture or bank account with you when you die you know) and I think we are getting better, but it has always been an uphill battle. My husband and I have been married for almost 32 years, we started recycling 34 years ago when we were first dating, been doing it ever since. We live inthe hot south but don't turn on the airconditioning until mid to late June at the earliest, turn it off by mid Sept. at the latest, don't turn on the heat until we have to, conserve water and have saved quite a bit over the years. Every one of us can do it if we will and all small baby steps take daily add up after time. Who knows, if more average citizens work to save our home, then someday maybe the corporations will join us? probably not due to their greed, but one can hope.

IR, seriously, best post of the day. Your response to poor little Joanna was much deserved. I stepped firmly on NJNB last night too. Trying to decide which would take the award for the unhappiest person that posts on First Read? I think they are tied for First Place. I try not to read what they write, since I believe optimism should carry the day, and they are just too pessimistic to enter my happy little world. We are expecting dangerous storms here tonight, which means that my poor horses will be off the pasture and confined to quarters, which they don't like this time of year. Jody, we are also getting a lot of rain here, doesn't want to stop. Hope all is well with everyone else.

Feisty, the "right wing nuts" are not silent on this. You just are not listening because they are saying things you do not want to hear, like what no joe, no bo, nj wrote above. Obama has no leadership skills at all.

This big government of ours is getting in the way of any decent cleanup. The bigger the government, the bigger the failures.

I like the idea of solar power, and wind power big oil hates it in part because if somebody, or some business invests in their own equipment who can raise the price of wind, who can raise the price of sunshine. With more use of these systems people could actually predict energy costs.

I agree. End our addiction to oil now! We shoulf use alternative sources. Like say, wind or solar power. Then years down the road from now, the same people will be complaining about the evil solar companies and wind companies. I can see you all now with your signs protesting "Wind International Inc" ....."Hell No We Won't Blow!" or "Shoot The Breeze!!!"

CU Farley,

In this country that is what's supposed to happen. When any organizations, unions, corporations, or even the government become more concerned with its self than the people we as Americans should be taking them to task. If I went back through your statement and replaced the word companies with government many folks like you would agree whole heartedly. The fact is any time the we allow these huge entities to exploit our money, our environment, and our lives we should be ashamed. We the people, when we act as one, are the only thing big enough to hold unions, corporations, or even the government accountable. That is why our President was able to go to bp and get the escrow account, because he had the strength of the people behind his voice when he went in that room. Unfortunately it took more than 50 days for that strength to build but look at the out come. You know the oil is still coming and the clean-up is a uphill fight so you would have to admit that the industry has gone too far into the money first, populace second mind set. The fact is we let it get there, now we need to stop it. If and when solar and wind companies get there we will need to stop them as well.

You know, it takes a peculiar brand of hubris to believe you can control the weather. Now, I am all for not being wasteful-I have too much Yankee in me to waste ANYTHING-but the fact of the matter is this:

NONE of the alternatives can take the place of oil.

The same thing you seem to think motivates the oil companies, (greed) has motivated those who believed they had a viable alternative for more than 40 years. Unfortunately, Solar DOES NOT make a viable alternative, and the same people decrying the oil companies stomp their feet and yell 'no' at anyone who dares suggest anything else. (although, in fairness, there are those who decry solar, as well. In California, there is a group fighting the solar farm in the desert, claiming that the panels despoil the sand, or some such nonsense.)

Nuclear is the best option-they'e against it.

Wind Farms? Oh, no, can't have them. They're noisy-hurt the birds, kill the fish-besides, they're ugly. That means they 'pollute the view'. (yes, I actually heard that one at a windfarm hearing-from an 'environmental activist'.)

Want to make an environmentalist's head explode? bring up hydropower. or garbage to gas.

Now, Fiesty, I will take you much more seriously if you give up your home, car, everything, and move into a cave. No can openers-hunt and gather. I swear I will-but you won't know it, since you will have no computer as you will be 'off the grid', as it were. Maybe someone in your troop will call by and let you know. For old times sake, as it were.

sonmanvb,

Here is the problem - you complain about the President's leadership skills, but when you are in power, you do not lead us over anything other than a cliff.

So basically, now that all your your idealogy has been found lacking, how do you then appoint yourself as the judge and jury of what is effective?

How would you know?

And most of the "tips" giventto President Obama are basically to do the same stupid stuff that didn't work for the past 8 years.

You call that leadership?

That is why I tune you folks out, your comments basically boil down to WAAAAAAAAAH!

No logic, no reason, and no results.

Mother Earth will survive just fine. We are making it unlivable for ourselves. The earth will go on and evolution will go on. Humanity going on?? That's up for debate...

NoJoe, you seem to have a really odd perception of environmental types... based on extreme stereotypes. We can get off oil. The most significant first step would be to, quite simply (and quite extreme), set a date where no new fossil fuel based vehicles can be sold in the U.S. Starting in (hypothetically) 2014, for example, all new vehicles (up to a certain weight to allow for the trucking industry to catch up) must be plug in electric style. Starting in 2018, all industrial on-road vehicles (semis, that category) must be plug in electric.

With this type of mandate, the industries now will begin the race to transition over and be the first and best at what they do. The Volt will not only see mass production (driving the cost down), but other companies will switch all brands they intend to maintain to plug in style.

Yes, it's extreme and someone on the right of the political spectrum will scream bloody murder, but it would work.

Next thing to do is set a hard deadline, say Jan. 2011, where all new buildings, houses, pick a category... will be required to be built with enough solar collection capability to produce 120% of the expected electrical use of the home. The remainder, of course, will feed into the grid. In addition, require new homes to have a means of plug in for electrical vehicles. Have them designed with this convenience in mind. Include some means of transitioning current homes to solar with the ultimate goal of every home having its own solar generation.

Of course, other means of electrical generation are required... I'm a big proponent of nuclear power. I was in the Navy six years on a nuclear carrier... I've seen how safe it actually is and can be. Wind, geothermal, great ideas. The garbage to gas... not as great, you still result in greenhouse gas emissions, but still a good idea during the transition phase. Algae to oil, this can be used to serve the airline industry and military needs. This is carbon neutral... the algae absorbs CO2 during its development.

It's far from impossible, but it would take big steps and a country working together to get it done. If we decide as a nation that yes, we're going to do this, hell... we put people on the moon with computers less capable than a modern cell phone. This is the U.S. Impossible only means we haven't decided to try yet.

Mike S:

So, once all cars and trucks are converted over to "plug-in style", we'll be ok, right? Where does the electricity come from? Electricity is generated by turbines that spin around real fast and static electricy is collected. There's one flaw: how do you turn the turbines? Steam is used to turn them. How do we get steam? We boil water. How do we boil water? Coal, Oil, Nutural Gas, Nuclear fuel rods. Coal is very polluting. Natural Gas is smelly. Nuclear is very unpopular. Oil is what we use.

Liberals always bring up the electric car, but never understand that all that electricity has to come from somewhere.

Hey Lynch,

I really hate to be the one to break this to you, but here in the real world, we have things like solar power, wind turbines, hydroelectric generators, algae also looks to have some real potential. Do you ever get tired of looking over your shoulder and molding tin foil hats?

Hey Disgusted,

Real World? You mean Liberal pipe-dream! Solar power is weak. Wind Turbines are weak. Hydro is weak (plus you need to be near water). The cost involved with converting algae to biofuels is too high.

Nuclear is the way to go, but no one wants to be near one.

Funny how I don't call people names in my posts, like you implied by your tin-foil hat comment. Weak.

Lynch,

Solar, wind, hydro, etc. are all still weak simply because the oil barons of the GOBP cannot stand to see their big money friends inconvenienced by actually funding these alternative technologies in research, development, and start up through distribution. If we took 1% of the BILLIONS in tax breaks, credits, and subsidies as we hand over to Big Oil every year, we could fund these technologies to the point where they WOULD be viable alternatives. But then people like you would actually have to give up a little bit of that "hard earned" bounty huh?

I did not call anyone a name. I simply implied that if you truly believe some of what you post, that you may well be someone that needs to work on those skills. If that hits a little too close to the bone for you Lynch, I guess I have to say that I am really not that concerned by that fact.

Disgusted:

You think I have a stake in oil companies? I'm a poor accountant from Philadelphia. Ok, I'll put on my "liberal debate strategy" hat and strike out at those with whom I disagree: you're a whack-job!

If you are a poor accountant from Philly, why on earth are you taking positions that only benefit those at the very top of the economic food chain? You must be one of those that are perfectly happy and willing to vote against your own personal best interests (or those of your kids and grandkids) as long as you can surround yourself with other poor souls that cannot see what is being done to them.

If you are not one of them, why are you so aligned with those that care not a whit about you or what happens to you as long as the petro dollars keep flowing? How do YOU benefit by turning a blind eye to promising technology that exists TODAY and lacks only the funding and commitment necessary to bring to market on a scale that can be successful in the marketplace?

If you want to engage in a positive discussion, start by not making statements that are vague, unclear, or just plain wrong. If you make a statement like you did, expect people like me to point out how your post is correct, incorrect, incomplete, or misleading. If someone corrects you and attempts to elicit a reasoned debate from you, don't hurl insults or ad-hominem attacks. Stick to the topic and your supporting documentation and we might actually be able to move the discussion forward.

Hey Lynch, thanks for the response. Sorry the post got to long, it looks like you may have not read it all. I hope my writing isn't that dry...

The electricity comes from the other provisions mentioned:

Solar required on new homes, as well as a convenient external plug in method

Retrofit current homes for solar

Nuclear, geothermal, wind power replacing the fossil fuel plants. Solar farms also a viable option. We just need to, as a country, focus our efforts on making it happen.

FEISTY:

And we still haven't heard from Dick Cheney!

Afterall, he is an expert at criticizing the President on everything he says and does. Interesting that he hasn't joined the chorus over at Fox in blaming the whole oil disaster on the President.

This silence is deafening.

I hear you Sheila!

And not a peep out of his spawn either (with the exception of This Week a couple weeks ago)!

The silence is deafening! :0)

Independent Redneck Va. I’m going to move on down to a end stool at the Dew Drop Inn and get me a cool one to nurse while I watch the Poll Dancers ply their wares. You’ll be careful not to pick up any of those nasty contact rashes they are hard to explain to your significant other.

Have a good day, and while you're there, say hi to Feisty.

JoAnna it would be my distinct pleasure to buy Red the beverage of her choice any where anytime. My dear old Redneck Daddy always told me that life was to short to dance with ugly partners so in your case you are just going to have to cover your own bar tab and P-Tips.

IR- y' didn't ask her (JoAnna) about her 'fried eggs'?

IR, I like your post, save a seat for me. I like to have a bourbon with friends, what a good time we would have, Right Fiesty?

Nothing better than drinks amongst friends... Cheers!

JoAnna - Quick question for ya... why do you enjoy abusing only 'dumb' animals? Could it be the smart ones would kick your ass? Ahh never mind... I already know the answer... :0)))

Count me in IR, we could solve the problems of the would finally.

Don't forget to include NoJoNoblow in your greetings, I'm sure he will be there.

IR, sometimes the most complicated situations are solved by people getting together sitting down and having a drink. Just think of all of those inventions that were actually drawn on napkins in bars or diners many years ago that came to fruition. Quotinga line "It's Five O'clock somewhere"!

Union Baby no demonstration of the Poll dancing art would be complete without an Encore performance by old Jersey Shores I'm sure it will be along directly.You want to join me ,Red,GBM, Mo and Drive-by( we are going to make Drive -by leave that visual at the door it would spoil breakfast) and Terry and I'll move to a corner booth so we have room.

IR I am with you also. A nice glass of cold white wine is my beverage of choice. have to take it when we can :))

I'll be there too, IR! As soon as the horses are in the barn! Save some popcorn for me.

IR - looks like you've organized quite the little PAARTEE! I'll bring some popcorn & in the meantime I'll take a Absolute martini (stirred not shaken lol) with a wedge of lemon! ;0)

Almost forgot... make sure you all bring plenty of quarters so we can properly tip the pole dancin granny!

IR - looks like you're gonna need the whole back room instead of just that corner booth.

First round's on me!

I'm a wine drinker. White Zen please...and some popcorn.

I'm trying to get the back room lined up but a whole crowd of Republican conventioneers from the Family Values crowd just showed up waving 20's and 50's so I might have to go back to the ATM so we can compete.

White Zen for me as well. I get second round.

I always hate to drink alone - so save a spot for me too!! I'll take any alcoholic beverage at this point. I'm starting to get thirsty now!!

If my friends are drinking - save a seat for me! I've earned it after this product launch! ha ha a couple Michelob Ultras would be so smooth right about now!

Whether someone is unsatisfied with a President or his performance or his accomplishments is something that requires a series of questions to be asked and answered. Those questions must establish the knowledge base of the pollee. An unwillingness or inability to answer the baseline questions will indicate whether the results of the poll have anything to do with reality and/or everything to do with perception. Given who I sample and how I form the questions, I can get almost whatever ratio that I wish, which I can then use to INFLUENCE opinion and media DISCUSSION. I think even you actually know this...... you're just too disengenuous to admit it. If you allow me to ask you a series of questions put to you in person I am certain that I can get you to admit that you are a racist, I can get to college park, md. in less than three hours.

Good points Paul, plus I always wondered - who are they polling? Nobody calls my house, (I have a land line), I would have love to have given poll answers on bush and cheney, nobody called. I would love to have participated in the health care polls, no one called. Plus you are correct, it is also who is doing the polling, I remember back in the late 90's I actually ticked a pollster off (they were incognito repugnants, but did not hide it very well) when I did not give him the answers he was looking for. I really enjoyed that conversation!

Don't get too pumped up over these numbers CU. You all always under estimate President Obama, as does the media. He's way ahead of all of you. If the media would spend as much time explaining when they were wrong about President Obama that would take up about half of their air time, but once he proofs them wrong they just seem to drop the story. But then again they wouldn't have as much time to give their so called expert opinions.

Exactly !!! WHO are they polling?

Paul,

I read the poll last night and your post is right on. Nice job. I do not care much for polls as in my opinion the questions are designed merely to solicit a particular response. Also I am not sure if 1000 people is a accurate data sample.

No CU:

Not all those in the middle are racists. Here is the crux CU. Obama has been and will continue to be under a finer miicro-scope than many past Presidents. Not only by voters but by the press. Why? Yes, because he is the first African American to become President. Second, because he basically came out of no-where and took down Hillary who was a supposed shoe-in at the beginning of the primary and then was able to ward off McCain/Palin and the attacks from the right. You know, those Obama is a terrorists attacks, etc. Third, Obama is young and bright and able to incite people. Because of these characterestics not only did voters set the bar high for him but he set the bar high for himself. Although having stated many, many times during the election he would need the people's help, he could not avoid these high bars because of his charisma.

So you see CU. No one is saying that people on the right, in the middle and even some on the left who may be disappointed in Obama are racists. This does not mean that there are not racists in the country because you and I both know that there are racists in this country. But Obama's biggest problems are a result of the micro-scope he has been placed under, the high expectations people placed on him and those high expectations he placed on himself. And finally, to add to this set of problems, Obama has been hit by disaster after disaster since taking office. He did not enter the Presidency under calm winds as many past Presdients have been able to do. He took the oath, opened the door to the Whitehouse and inside awaited several nasty storms that he has been forced to deal with. And after having fought one storm another strom has been right behind it raising its ugly head.

That's it CU. So cut the accusatory crap about folks defending Obama because of other's racism, and acknowledge and/or refute the real reasons why Obama's has had difficulty with poll numbers as of late. Those stated above.

I was fortunate/unfortunate to be polled, and the questions were framed to get a negative response. Needless to say, I terminated the call because the questions were not simple yes/no response.

CA, Tuscaloosa, AL said:

"No one is saying that people on the right, in the middle and even some on the left who may be disappointed in Obama are racists."

WRONG. Lots of lefty liberals ARE saying that ANY criticism of Obama from the right is just racism.

Answering your own set-up questions are you CU?

No one has said all who opposed Obama prior to the 2008 election, or subsequently are racist. The over whelming opposition to Obama in the 08 election was based upon policy/positions. No doubt most who are currently unhappy with the President's performance (whether they voted for Obama, McCain, or didn't vote) are not unhappy due to his race, but due to factors, such as unemployment, the gulf oil explosion (leaks or spills connotes a insignificant volume), etc. Much of the unhappiness is due to factors beyond the Presidents control, and due to the 24 cable chatter.

However, the fact that most who are unhappy with the President are not racist, does not negate the fact that race is a factor for many of his most vocal critics, especially those who lack a reasonable basis for their criticism. Does anyone really believe if the President was a white man named Sean O'Malley was born in Hawaii with a US citizen mom and a college student from Ireland anyone would question his US citizenship? Of course not.

Last night I was driving from Milwaukee to Iowa. For a couple hundred miles I listened to late night right wing talk radio. Talk show hosts that I have rarely heard talk sense (Jim Bohanan for example) were the voice of reason. The subject was McChrystal's resignation. The callers all thought Obama was wrong, and the military should be bale to say what ever they want about Obama. Bohanan repeatedly said I didn't vote for him, but the majority of Americans who voted who did, and he is the COC and McChrystal's conduct was inexcusable, and Obama was 100% right. Listening to these callers, and then having the host be the voice of reason was sobering. I don't know how many of these people are racist, as opposed to just poorly educated dim wits. No doubt many would have supported a general doing the same to Clinton, however, I doubt as many would have been as vitriolic, where the host had to tell the caller to calm down and watch his language! And I'm sure if a general (and his inner circle) talked that way about W and his administration many on the far left would not merely take a certain amount of inner pleasure, but claim the General should not be fired, because he told the truth. However we will never know because while W fired many in the military for disagreeing with policy, or requesting more troops (however these disagreements weren't aired pre-termination to the media, but through the proper chain of command), no general ever publicly criticised W, or called the National Security Advisor a "clown".

Good try for those saying if you disagree with Obama it doesn't mean you're a racist. However, read the archives of this site and ask some of the ppl posting here today how many times they called somebody a racist just because they didn't agree with Obama policies/positions.

Though the construction might have been awkward, I get what CU was saying. Are those who now disagree with Obama, but called others a racist in the past for doing the same, now racists themselves? Something one should think about before they make such accusations against others, just because they don't like somebody else's position.

I've been called a racist here. If you could see me and knew my ethnic heritage, you'd be rolling on the floor laughing at the issuance of such a charge. If I'm a racist, I need to get busy desecrating the graves of my parents and ancestors, spitting on my children and grandchildren and beating myself because I hate myself and all those who went before and after me.

Personally, I think race has no place in the political discussion regarding Obama. It seems, perhaps, that the "race defense" is losing some steam . For the betterment of us all, I certainly hope so.

Thank you CA Tuscaloosa. The right is still in denial that the era of Reagonics died in 2008, right around Sep 15--it is just easier for them to say none of it happened while Bush was in office yet nearly everything is a result of decisions Bush made.

IR, VA. No doubt there's a spot at the Dew Drop for visitors who could use a cold brew. If it wasn't just a long drive, I think I'd just run right over and say hi.

Feisty R. You were spot on. Haven't heard one mention of the GOP children and grandchildren in their apologies to BP for Obama banking some of their money for the Gulf residents.

Do you seriously believe that President Obama doesn't take public opinion into account? Get real. What Obama is not doing is letting his policy decisions be driven by poll results. Not even Bush was to any great extent.

that just shows your ignorance of how most Dems felt about Bush's policies. Seriously. You can't wage TWO wars and cut taxes. It has effectively bankrupted us. Every gasp and cry from your side can be summed up with this statement:

"Bush drained the Treasury so there are no funds left to govern."

And now your side has decided to bitch and moan about it. I cannot name ONE SINGLE SOLITARY policy that W enacted that helped the Average American Citizen. Can you?

But he sure covered his "Base" now didn't he? His Military Contractors, they are wealthier, His Wall Street Cronies, wealthier - the Top 3% continue to gain (even now, they are so sheltered) while the bottom 80% or so are Worse Off. There are a handful of upper middle class who remain 'less' affected than most; but in terms of COLA and other rising costs (fuel, healthcare, etc) there has been an impact.

Most Dems have the same complaint with President Obama and it is this, I am tired of trying to work with the spoiled and petulant who have decided to sit back and draw their government pay and benefits while waiting for the midterms to even the score. I keep hearing how Healthcare Reform was shoved down throats and I dispute that myth. If it would have been shoved the way it deserved to be shoved, their throats would be so sore - they wouldn't have the wherewithall to complain.

This political calculation should backfire; but the Dems haven't implemented the 24-7 echo chamber to combat the Rightwing LIES and intentional MISINFORMATION that has become the bedrock of their platform. And as a Dem, I am disheartened by the constant capitulation of my party. Does that mean I won't support my party? Of course not. Does it mean I will express this frustration with my party when polled or asked? You bet your sweet cheeks.

So let's don't read too much into these polls this far out. If there aren't tangible improvements in the economy by November,...The Repubs will most likely dominate the midterms; but if we continue making gains, however slight and show an upward trend,...I think the echo chamber may very well be surprised!

Or not,...really seems too early to tell. I still cling to the idea that the Repubs are going to flash out fizzle around Labor Day and it will be a steady trounce from then. But hey, I'm an eternal optimist when it comes to watching them shoot themselves in the foot.

Please G-d, let them run with Palin. She has regional appeal with that specific demographic - but no way in hell does she stand a chance on a National stage.

MB,

About the only thing this poll shows me is how racist the african-american people are. Definition of racism is treating or thinking of people differently because of their race.

Now isn't it funny they approve of obama 95% when poll numbers across the board average 50%.................hummm

Proud repugnant one- This poll shows that the polls are wrong! If EVERYONE was polled evenly with even handed questions and not lead or talking point questions his numbers would be sky high. 95% African American, over 60% Latino and rest of the "minorities" which all together equals the "MAJORITY". So OBVIOUSLY the low numbers come from whites. So both are racists!!!

pr-

There's an undestandable degree of pride among African-Americans in the election of President Obama. That his election marked a significant achievement in the progress toward racial equity and reconciliation is undeniable.

That said, it's remarkable that in present-day America, any demographic group votes in the 90+ percentile for only one political party...virtually no Republicans, negligible numbers of independent voters.

For a demographic that continually trumpets the virtues of "diversity", it's remarkable how little diversity of political thought is demonstrated.

Ole Chicago 1932

Proud repugnant one- This poll shows that the polls are wrong! If EVERYONE was polled evenly with even handed questions and not lead or talking point questions his numbers would be sky high. 95% African American, over 60% Latino and rest of the "minorities" which all together equals the "MAJORITY". So OBVIOUSLY the low numbers come from whites. So both are racists!!!

No there not both racist, this shows that black and Latinos continue to have faith in there democtatic president and whites are waiting for the other shoe to drop. just like blacks and Latinos were all over the republican president, whites are doing the same thing. yes its does have something to do with race but, everything that has to do with race does not make the other group racist. Bill Clinton during the sex scandal, his approval numbers were very high with blacks and Latinos. black and Latinos are very loyal to democrats.

that is NOT the definition of racism,...

Main Entry: rac·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\

Function: noun

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

You can support those who are 'like' you without it being racist. However, when you cross over and say "I won't vote for that person BECAUSE of trait A, B or C" - well that's racist. Of course, Bigotry is the more common denominator in what we see here and elsewhere. That's a whole OTHER set of issues.

Have to disagree Mix Bag. The public is not against Obama' s initaitves. After-all, he was elected based on these intiaitives. What the public is frustrated with is the bumpy road that these intiaitves have had to endure, as well as the length of time it has required to pass some of these intiaitves. Obama was elected to implement HC reform. Obama was elected to rein in wall street with appropriate regulations. Obama was elected to repeal don't ask, dont-tell. Obama was elected to try and set a better tone in Washington. Obama was elected to purse equal rights for all American citizens including Gays. Obama was elected to remove the middle man as those making huge profits on student loans. Obama was elected to give the middle class some tax breaks. Obama was elected to improve the protections of those in the middle class from greedy wealthy corporations and individuals who take advantage of the middle class and poor.

Each and everything that Obama was elected to pursue (by the majority of the people) he has pursued. Granted, some have been difficult and some have not taken on the shape or form that people wished they had (i.e. HCR). Obama has had to compromise in some cases to pursue these intiaitves that has even angered some on the left. Some initiaitives have been stalled and/or damaged by the lack of republican cooperation (especially as it rrelates to setting a cooperative tone in Washington).

As far as the economic crises and the oil spill, there were no initiatives proposed prior to these events because they had not occured while Obama was being elected. So Mixed Bag, it is not that people do not agree with Obama's initiatves. It is because some people are fickle and people do not understand the difficulties of getting anything passed through Congress as proposed and as hoped for. And some people simply blame whomever is in office at the time of a crises no matter who that person is because the crises happened on their watch.

Think of this. Obama's performance approval numbers may be in the mid 40s. But if the people had elected McCain/Palin their performance approval numbers would most likely be in the 20s. Now, tell me we are not better off with Obama.

Question is, CA...

Does the public as a whole still believe that we're better off?

One of the main topics of discussion this morning (second only to the McChrystal resignation), as chosen by the First Read editorial team, is the new NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll.

What are the comments of Chuck Todd and Mark Murray about the poll's findings suggesting to you, CA?

These guys are saying President Obama and the Democrats are in trouble...they're saying that, forget the support of Democrats...everyone else is lining up in opposition to this Administration. At least, that's what I'm hearing them say.

I see no indication whatsoever that the participants in this survey were telling the interviewers that they feel "better off with Obama."

My take is that they're saying something entirely different, CA

Dear Mixed Bag,

Please keep your deep race thoughts to yourself.

You get back to me after your people work for 200 years at unpaid jobs and don't have nothing to show for it but lashes on their back and a liquor store on the corner.

This country has systematically and deliberately put every stumbling block imaginable in black people's way, and I'll be damned if now it is OUR FAULT that we trust a BLACK PRESIDENT?

Hell, Mixed Bag, wtf do you want from us?

You don't wanna pay reparations,

You don't wanna give us our 40 acres and the freakin' mule,

You don't want us to mention all the years when it was ILLEGAL for us to be educated,

You don't want us to mention all the years we couldn't vote and had no say so in the government,

You don't want us to mention all the white folks that got rich by not paying us for our labor,

You don't want us to mention all the predatory lending that you still do in our communities,

You don't want us to mention racial profiling, unequal wages, discrimanatory health care practieces, the Tuskeegee experiment, and the list goes on and on and on.

But now it is OUR FAULT that we support the first black President, the one that is being disrespected and undermined more than any other President in U.S. History?

Mixed Bag . . . how about thinking before you type and growing the #$@# up. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about.

None.

The 95% of black people who know what it is like to endure unregulated working conditions that favor the companies and not the employee are (D) leaning voters. The number of white people who know and understands what it's like to endure unregulated working conditions that favor the companies and not the employee are (D) leaning voters. It is simple, for many years your race had a lot to do with how you were treated in this country. Black parents have not let there children forget who was marching with them and who was throwing bricks at them. I grew up in a very red state, (AZ) every year my parents took me out of school for MLK day to go march because it wasn't a holiday in Arizona. How am I now supposed to now vote for the folks who stood in the way of honoring an American hero from my culture? That doesn't even make a little sense. Arizona recognises MLK now but just for the record we were the last state to do so. How quickly folks on the right want me to turn the other cheek and vote Republican.

Mixed Bag--

Really it's the policies? If that is the case why the anti-health care reform sentiment? The actual bill that was passed pretty much mirrors the GOP plan in 1993, and the one that McCain said he would implement if elected. Go read the 08 Presidential debate transcripts, they are still available on line. Obama was in favor of a more aggressive HCR bill, but wasn't able to get Democrats to support it once the Insurance Industry and right wing spin went into full force in the summer of 09, and McCain's proposal almost mirrors what was passed. McCain called for a mandate, and then opposed his own plan after he lost the election. Obama ran in favor of a far more aggressive HCR measure that he wasn't able to get passed. Are you claiming that the public is upset that the more conservative HCR proposal passed? It's true many liberals are upset there is no public option, but most of these people still are strong Obama supporters.

Obama ran on HCR as one of his number one priorities, this wasn't part of a hidden agenda. Obama crushed McCain in the election, and unlike Bush who claimed a "mandate" despite the disputed Florida results, and losing the over all popular vote, Obama has every reason to believe that the majority of voters, not merely the vocal opposition, support the platform he ran on. Maybe many who voted for Obama didn't support his well publized agenda, and didn't believe he actually intended to push his agenda through (like so many candidates before him). However, if someone opposed the watered down HCR bill that was passed, believing it was too liberal, and they voted for Obama, either because McCain picking Sarah Palin drove them away from McCain, or they didn't think Obama would actually try to keep his campaign promises, that is their problem!

Opponents of Obama can't even separate policies or actions that happened under W with what happened post 1/20/09 when Obama was sworn into office. The far right blames Obama for the Wall Street bail out, despite the fact that both Obama and McCain voted in 2008 for the bail out bill. And Hank Paulsen's original bill was 3 pages in length, and gave him complete unfettered power to do as he saw fit with no congressional over sight. The Democrats (and many elected GOP leaders) worked together to deal with the crisis, and provide oversight and guidelines not present in Bush's original proposal.

The auto industry bail out happened on W's watch in 2008. W punted and had the review, and second half of the auto bail out occur in March 09, but the legislation was signed into law by W!

I could go on and on pointing out how often the far right criticism of Obama is either against measures he openly ran on (repealing DADT, closing Gitmo, an economic stimulus bill, etc) , or actions that actually happened under W (Wall Street bail out, GM bail out, et cetera), but reality isn't important to those who hate Obama.

Wow, Nashville-

You certainly typed a lot a words, while somehow managing to be almost totally unresponsive to what I actually said.

Extra credit for the hostility, and out-of-control emotionalism, though.

Time for a response...ah, where to begin?

What was racist about my remarks? What was factually inaccurate about my remarks?

Do African-Americans vote for Democrats in the 90+ percentile...or not? Let's set aside Republicans for a moment. At a time when, in many states, independents make up a larger segment of the electorate than either Democrats or Republicans...why are there so few, a tiny amount really, of black independent voters? And what on earth is racist about asking that question, Nashville?

Finally, please explain to me why I, Mixed Bag, owe you, Nashville:

Reparations, and forty acres and a mule.

When you're finished with that, please explain how I am responsible for:

Lashes on anyone's back;

The fact that it was once illegal for blacks to receive an education;

Blacks being denied the vote and a role in their own governing;

How I got rich (sorry, I'm a working class guy myself) from the labor of blacks;

Predatory lending practices;

And, of course, all the other items on your lengthy list, Nashville.

I owe you one thing and one thing only...believing that you deserve equality before the law.

And, I already believe that.

Mixed Bag, 90%+ of blacks vote for the Democrat in EVERY Presidential election because they identify the party as in line with their interests, whereas they identify the Republican party as oh, I don't know...The Southern Strategy, Willie Horton ads, Welfare Queen accusations, working to eliminate Affirmative Action. The fact that our President is black (half, actually, which highlights our insane "one drop of blood" history) is just verification that the party they've always backed actually IS the party of equal opportunity. Accusing blacks of being racist for holding to a historical pattern doesn't fly.

Mixed Bag:

First of all, I did not say your comment was racist.

Second of all, I did not ask you for anything, other than to use your brain before you "wonder" about things that are pretty obvious to all but the most obtuse observers.

And lastly, you can pretend that you did not benefit from the mistreatment of black folks if you want.

It's not about emotion, Mixed Bag, it is about fact, and I note that you did not dispute the clear record of systematically working to hold black people down in this country.

So the point is that it was not only a bootstrap that your ancestors used to pull themselves up . . . there was also the stepping stool of free, black slave labor.

And the ability of folks like yourself to completely discount that as if it never happened, while simultaneously wondering "why" black folks stick together, is, in a word, ridiculous.

Every freaking right we got today was won by STICKING TOGETHER, not by waiting for America to remember that black folks were in fact men too, while they touted "all men are created equal" out of one side of their mouths while simultaneously using the other side of their mouth to buy and sell their fellow man like cattle.

So Mixed Bag, you tread lightly when you so glibly wonder what is going on with black folk - how about you don't bring it up if you can't handle the answer.

And I make no apologies for the heat of my response - I have been on this board listening to this type of sh!t for years, and usually I just let it pass, as I am sure I will in the future.

But there was just a little too much foolishness for one day so I gave you the gift of insight.

Use it if you can.

Please demonstrate where I suggested that blacks are racists, John. Since that's a serious charge to make, please be specific.

And John, when you consider that most U.S. cities with a large African-American population have Democratic mayors...and then you consider the living conditions in those cities...are African-Americans really voting their interests?

What do they identify the Democratic politicians leading their communities with...the high unemployment, drug use, and the murder rate?

Don't they have a right to expect something more for their votes?

I know that I do for mine.

How about you?

Well Mixed Bag, using that logic, alot of Red States have Republican Governors and mayors and they are at the bottom of every list educationally and economically. Are they really voting for their interests?

Nashville-

I handled your answer just fine...you couldn't handle the question. I remained, and continue to remain civil...I don't think you can honestly make the same claim.

And you've still got a lot more rationalization to do before you've explained how I have benefitted from mistreatment of blacks.

While you're at it, I'd like to hear a lot more about my clear record of "systematically working to hold down black people in this country."

Because that's what you've said and that's we're talking about. You attacked me personally, made charges about me personally.

I owe you nothing other than the belief that you deserve equality before the law. Period.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me where I've got that wrong.

The only insight I've gained relates to how remarkably thin-skinned you are, Nashville...and how well you dish out abuse, but handle criticism of your remarks so very poorly.

So Nashville...

Are you suggesting that neither demographic is?

Ok Wait a minute Nashville_fan and Mixed Bag

Mixed bag, you stated, when you consider that most U.S. cities with a large African-American population have Democratic mayors...and then you consider the living conditions in those cities...are African-Americans really voting their interests?

Yes blacks are voting for there best self interest and i will tell you why, His name was Ronald reagan, Reagan was the first of republicans presidents who started this whole debate, with the haves and haves not. in the past republicans president were nothen like this guy, Ford, Nixion Eisenhower, were more centrist, they were not ultra consertive republicans. blacks could depend on these presidents to not do the things reagan did,

For example, Nixon add to SS for dependents over the age of 18 would continue to recieve SS as long as they were in college full time, reagan took it away, nixon also made cost of living increases mandatory for SS and reagan took it away. these presidents had compassion for the regular guy, reagan did not. I'm from chicago and you are right that big citys like that are run by democrats, and they do have minorires in there best interest. you talk about the drug problems in the citys, well once again reagan allowed crack cocaine in the citys to fund his war in certral america after congress cut the funding, so as long as todays republicans idolize reagan then blacks will never trust a republican president ever again or even republicans in general.

i hope this answered your question.

Mixed Bag,

I think I handled your question beautifully if I do say so myself . . . you are just used to making blanket statements about "black people" without getting called on it.

You asked why black people vote the way we do and see the world the way we do, and I gave you the answer.

Now you got your back up because I pointed out the simple fact that this country, including you, generated alot of wealth with uncompensated slave labor.

It is always amazing to me how folks can see how shrimp boat fishermen should be compensated for losing 2 months of work, but cannot fathom how black folks should expect anything at all for hundreds of years of no and low wages.

I am not holding my breath for any payments or sympathies from you or anyone else - but that ain't gonna stop me from speaking the truth.

I am not thin-skinned, if I were I would have stopped this "conversation" long ago. I can dish it and and more than happy to "take it" . . . I just don't see anything that you are offering that I need to take, do you?

What pearls of wisdom can I glean from your original post or any post there after?

If you make blanket assertions about a group of people, then be prepared to back it up or back down.

P.S. I did not attack you personally, seeing as I don't know you. And yes, I feel voters in all demographics do not always vote in their best interest . . . but once again, you prefer to single black people out. Wonder why that is?

Wow...I wonder what we owe the Native Americans...?

I mean...Everybody here bootstrapped themselves on the backs of the Natives. We turned canon on the women and children, gave them blankets with smallpox, almost entirely killed off a species of bison that numbered in the 10s of millions because they were a major food source, then we treated them as the untouchable class with absolutely NO rights, NO home, NO lands, NO nothing...

I bet we all owe them a penny or two, eh? Hell, they should be getting royalties.

M.Fisher,

You owe then your respect and the courtesy of not making comments about them based solely on your life experiences while completely discounting theirs.

But that's just my humble opinion.

EDIT: Just saw the comments you added . . . and yes we do owe the Native Americans more than they have gotten . . . but the point of my comments was not to ask for literal compensation, but rather to serve as a point of understanding . . . you know walking in another man or woman's shoes before you judge them . . . but hey, if you wanna chip in something for the Native Americans I think that is an AWESOME idea. I just wish folks could think of the plight of others sometimes and not always just themselves.

Mixed Bag I noticed you have not responded to my post. You seem to be an expert on black history and culture. At no point did I say you were responsible, but I am saying you can not expect someone who has heard stories about how there family members got brutalized to forget who did it. At no point did I say white people did it. I said the Right seems to have protected and included many (not all) of the ones who did. With that being said how am I supposed to vote for them?

"I did not attack you personally..."

Well, Nashville, I guess we'll just have to disagree on that...

And, you made blanket assertions about my responsibility with regard to a long list of grievances that I have no control over, or involvement in, whatsoever...and yet somehow, you consider that to be fair.

While at the same time, you want fairness.

Your hypocrisy is breathtaking, Nashville.

I don't see any evidence,whatsoever, that you answered the initial questions I actually asked.

Do you even remember them, Nashville? I wondered why the African-American electorate votes Democratic in the 90+ percentile, and why there aren't more independent black voters, particularly given what the Democratic Party actually delivers to black voters. I wondered how black voting preferences represented diversity of political thought.

I'm still wondering, based on your response.

Worse still, you never answered whether or not I owe you any more than the belief that you should have the same rights, before the law, as I, or any other citizen of the United States has.

As your fellow citizen...do I owe you more than that, Nashville?

Really...?

More than that...?

Because...that's all I ask of you.

Mixed Bag,

You ask questions, but you are unable to process the answers.

So be it.

Life has a way of teaching lessons the hard way to those who choose to ignore easier routes.

I have shared with you more than you have the capacity to process already.

You continue to repeat yourself, and each insight I have shared with you has been left completely unexamined.

I will close by emphasizing this point since it seems to be the only thing you actually care about:

I do not expect anything from you. Ever.

Not that you have it to give.

Sorry, Tom-

You might not have noticed, but I've been a little busy with Nashville, who seems to think I owned a plantation in the antebellum Deep South.

The simple answer is that, based on your experience, you'll vote the way you like. Given your experience, you probably wouldn't vote Republican. Who asked you to? You weigh your options and make what you consider to be your best choice.

My point was and is that a 90+% loyalty to one political party in the American electorate is unique...and, I don't see where African-Americans are getting their money's worth from the Democratic Party. And until leverage is exercised, you won't. Sooner or later, you'll have to vote outside the confines of the Democratic Party to exercise that leverage...otherwise...enjoy the status-quo, my friend.

As we used to say in the Army..."continue to march", Tom.

Mixed Bag,

If black people worked and did not reap the profit from that labor, who did benfit?

If black folks were kept from holding positions in business, government, and academia, who did hold those positions?

If one group prevents another group from doing something so you can do it themselves, does that not benefit them?

If wealth is passed down from one generation to another, and that wealth is generated with slave labor and circulated through out the economy, how does that not constitute future generations benefitting from the free labor of slaves?

Your determination to hide behind the "I never held slaves, I never had a plantation" line is a pretty transparent attempt to avoid discussing what the results of a system built to lift one group up and hold another group down actually is.

So your contention is once the slaves were freed, they were on equal footing with anyone else in America?

Jeff-

If 90+% of African Americans continue to vote for Democrats, in perpetuity, forever and ever, because of Ronald Reagan...

Well...so be it.

But I'm guessing that sooner or later, black voters will expect more in return for their votes.

Maybe I'm wrong about that.

Mixed Bag

My point was and is that a 90+% loyalty to one political party in the American electorate is unique...and, I don't see where African-Americans are getting their money's worth from the Democratic Party.

Ok i ask you what has the republican party done to try and get blacks to join there party? and please don't say Mike Steele.

Mixed Bag,

What do Republicans offer black voters, or any voters, that the Democratic party doesn't?

Do tell.

But Nashville-

My assertion that "I never held slaves, I never had a plantation" has the distinct advantage of being the truth.

As opposed to your transparencies.

I'll ask again, since you are so desperate to continue this discussion...one last time, Nashville:

What more do I owe you, as a fellow citizen, beyond the belief that you should enjoy the same equality before the law as I, or any other citizen?

So far, you appear utterly incapable of answering that question.

I suspect that in this case, appearance is reality.

Jeff-

So...it's the status quo, then?

Forever and ever?

black don't expect any thing from the democrats but to be treated like human beings. todays republicans treat blacks like we don't exist. many whites did not like clinton because they though he would do more for blacks than whites. the same loyalty you speak of that black have for the democrats, we use to have for republicans, untill roosevelt. roosevelt was the first democrate my family ever voted for. my dad voted for nixon in 1968, my grandma voted for ford instead of carter in 1976, like i said early you can thank ronald reagan for the loyalty you speak of that black have for the demorats.

Mixed Bag,

How many different ways do you want me to tell you that the only thing you owe me is to think before you speak.

You are incapable of that, so I guess we are even steven now.

Jeff-

I hear what you're trying to say about Reagan...loud and clear. But if you were a candidate running for office, how much time would you spend seeking votes where you knew you weren't going to get much more than 5% of the vote?

What you're saying is humorous to me...I voted twice for Jimmy Carter, in '76 and '80. I didn't vote for Reagan at all. The only party I've ever been registered in was the Democratic Party. I'm currently an independent, not registered to any party.

When the I felt the Democratic Party no longer represented my interests and beliefs, I was gone.

You live, you learn. I've never looked back, Jeff.

Mixed Bag

i'll give you another example, when justice marshall retired, instead of nominating a judge that has a history of important cases did not have to be black, he could have put a latina on the high court, but GHWB gave us Clarence Thomas, his thinking was that if you want a black on the high court i'll give you any thing.

justice marshall won the brown verses education, eleminating seperate but equal in public schools leading the intergration of all public schools, this was more important than the civil rights act.what did clarence thomas give us, sexural harasment laws because he would not leave anita hill alone.

see what i'm talking about, the republicans just give black any thing to show they are listioning, this we don't need or want.

Sorry Nashville-

I've responded to you again and again.

You need to answer the question I asked...not give me still another non-sequitur response.

It's easy...even written down for you.

Otherwise...what's the point?

You all have been beating the same horse for a while, it took quite a while to read all of your comments. Think maybe it's time to move on?

Mixed Bag

I hear what you're trying to say about Reagan...loud and clear. But if you were a candidate running for office, how much time would you spend seeking votes where you knew you weren't going to get much more than 5% of the vote?

Roosevelt was able to attract black to the democrate party. what he did was offer things to help the common man, not just the rich. he was a rich man just like kennedy and kennedy did the same thing, he went out and worked hard for votes from the common man. please tell me a republican who has tried the same thing.

It was time a long time ago, LiL

Way too long.

Message received.

Living in LA,

The horse is dead?

Damn.

lol

Jeff, I f I hear ONE MORE crackhead try and spout that "Reagan put crack in the ghetto" BS, I'm gonna puke. Anyone in the ghetto who ever did crack did so out of their own imbecility. Got it. Statements like you make are one of the reasons so many people hate the "bleeding heart" types. It's not unusual to make excuses for ghetto dwellers, but for God's sake, please take a LITTLE responsibility for something...please. Crackheads became crackheads because they are low-character dimwits. The ghetto drug epidemic of choice in the 1960s and 70s was heroin. Remember? Who put that there? LBJ, the best friend the ghetto ever had according to libs? Actually, LBJs moronic policies created most of the problems existing in ghettoes then AND now. He and the Dem-controlled congress. The point is, if you refuse to take responsibility for any problems, at least take the blame for that one. Let's say Reagan DID put crack in the ghetto. No one was forced to smoke it and it became popular, like I said , due to the character of the people there who sell it and use it.

And , was it you that dragged out that tired old BS about the US giving small-pox infested blankets to the Indians? Again, you are full of crap. It's been proven to be a big, fat friggin' LIE. Look it up. Maybe you should look a lot of stuff up before you come on here and accuse people of such things.

CU Farley

well then got to the bathroom and spill your guts. its ture.

Hey, cuf, I was the one who brought up the bit about natives and pox blankets.

Okay, suppose the fact is a fallacy, so fukn what!? The people in the US to include blacks who had joined the military killed off the natives and their cultures so they could take all of the land.

My point was (and yall are too busy trying to be 'right' and oh so sage to catch it) that if you look a bit farther back in history one group is always exploiting another group and if the caucasians (whites, honkeys, crackers, whatever) of the US owe black people something due to the recent past we can always look back a bit farther and find that eventually everybody owes some other group or culture for their involuntary contributions...which makes the whole discussion a moot point!

Not to mention the fact that you're ALL full of sh1t and this is one tired mf'n argument and everyone is tired of hearing it! Both parties in this discussion act as though there is not huge honkin azz gray area or contribution of factors regarding how our current place in history was arrived at. There were many contributing factors here! All of the things mentioned here had some part to play and some more than others.

And, now in our lifetimes, we see one of the most profound changes in US history with the election of the first black president. Love him or hate him. You're feelings are irrelevent because either way the history of the US across the board and particularly regarding race has taken a 90 degree turn.

The bottom line is that we are all Americans now, for better or for worse, and to assign or dodge blame is a total waste of time that solves nothing, creates problems and generates resentment and hard feelings. Shut the fk up all of you...

Great post JoAnn, I'm starting to enjoy reading your post.

"a huge number of our fellow Americans aren’t even remotely as interested...as we are"

Bingo! I have thought the same myself. Yesterday, I blurted out to a passing co-worker "General McChrystal has been fired by Obama!" and he had no idea what I was talking about. Another co-worker was voting for McCain in '08 although she couldn't name his running mate. (Can you imagine?)

"The middle" might as well be another name for people who don't really follow the news, think about the issues, or read political blogs. But they do notice when things aren't going well, and they blame the guy they hear derided 24/7 by the loudest talkers.

Excellent Post: Keep writing. You have a lot to say.

Thanks, guys. Looks like I'm gonna be the designated “poll dancer” here today, but I can't help it, it's what pays the bills for me. Though I keep telling people that some day I'm going to get a real job. : )

Anyway, a couple more points on some things other posters above and below here brought up:

Unlike most of the more product-oriented surveys my company does, political polling is almost always limited to closed-end questions – yes/no, agree/disagree, very/somewhat/not at all, etc. – rarely is the “Why do you say that?” question asked, because it takes much more time to code the answers into user-friendly but all too general categories. And coding – which has been the bulk of my career – is subjective anyway. Unless you use some sort of word-recognition software, which also has its drawbacks, especially once you stray into the “somewhat satisfied” category. Let’s say we’re asking about healthcare – you could scan the responses that all mention the word “cost”, but does someone who thinks “Obamacare” will cost us billions go in the same category as someone who thinks the cost of their current coverage is too high or someone who thinks there will be a cost savings down the road? Of course not. But I guarantee it happens. We have access to this type of software, but I never use it for precisely that reason.

The other thing political polls seldom seem to do is to cross-tabulate “performance” ratings against “importance” ratings, which is standard procedure in more product-oriented research. For example – someone who posts here (In The Middle? Mixed Bag? Sorry, I forget) is always mentioning President Obama’s poor performance on not closing Guantanamo as an issue that will decide future elections. Okay, on a scale of 1 to 10, I might rate that a 1 myself. But in terms of its relative IMPORATNCE to other issues on the table right now, I’d probably also give it a 1. So if it the importance of an issue has no value – or isn’t even asked – then the performance rating is pretty meaningless.

As for asking questions in person rather than on the phone? Well, that’s why focus groups are known as “qualitative” research and actual phone or Internet surveys are “quantitative”. If you want to see the big picture, you should probably include both. But obviously, focus groups are at best a tiny sample. Still, quick phone surveys demand quick, off the top of your head responses. I’ve been on the receiving end myself more than once and realized as soon as I hung up the phone that I wanted to go back and change a couple of my responses. Sorry – too late.

Polls are kind of like the U.S. Census, which you’ll recall this year was advertising itself as “taking a snapshot” of the country. Nice in theory, but in practice, the results start changing before you even finish asking the questions. Again, the poll that counts most is the one in November – and I think we’ve all learned that even that one starts changing the next day.

Okay, end of today’s class in Polling 101. Except for a quick funny tip on the ever-present demographic questions that always come at the end – race, income, education, etc. A lot of people refuse to answer income – understandably. Some – including me – refuse to answer the race question, because given the diversity of the country today, I find it irrelevant. Many other people consider it offensive, and there’s always at least a handful who put their answer in “Other” - my favorites used to be “American”, “human” and there’s almost always one “Martian”. Then I saw one that I’ve since adopted as my own standard response when I fill out a questionnaire. Race: 100-meter backstroke.

Take that, fellow pollsters!

JoAnn, great post.

Dennis,

Sounds like you read the poll as well. It also had some very interesting information on the Tea Pary and Sarah Palin as to their impact. Nice post.

Well said Dennis. We keep focusing on the President's numbers, but in fact they're the best of any actor on the political stage. The Democratic party in general--worse. Congress--worse. The Republican party, worst of all. It's all relative.

OMG I listened to Chris Matthews and Chuck Todd about polls on Chris's show last night, and had to change the channel. It seems as though that is supposed to be the only determinant of what's going on. The polls - I don't believe - reflect much of anything at this point. Yes, there are huges crises going on in our country right now - and none of which are President Obama's making. I, like others, feel he is too slow to respond, but then again, haven't most of us been taken aback by the unfettered lying and screeching of the far right. Stephen Colbert was great about Beck last night, and the great Guido Sarducci was on.

I listed to Chris and Chuck yack on and on and on about polls and some of the words they use are so enlightening (like I have said before, I think Chris is aiming for a job at Fox), words like "these poll numbers are just stunning!!!! And anything negative in the polls that can be hinted about they do, while not saying a whole lot about the opposition. I would love to write some poll questions and have those #s read. Questions like "What is the plan that the Republicans have heralded so that they can produce those jobs that they talk about all the time?", "What is the plan that the Republicans are behind that will rein in spending, (or) control an economic disaster in the future (or) control an environmental disaster in the future?" "(A) Have you ever heard a Republican elucidate an actual plan for how they will govern other than tax cuts for the wealthy and cut out spending? and (B) What will you be willing to give up in order to cut out spending?" "What will a Republican do differently in the next 2 or 4 or 6 years that he/she did in the previous 6-8 years that they were the majority in Congress, along with the President?" "If someone says "no" to everything before anything is even put on the table, do you think they are being cooperative and bi-partisan?"

Those would be some questions I would ask.

Bush spent more time on vacation than he did at the White House.

As for Pres. Obama's golf outings, did you know that lots of business is usually discussed on the golf course? Did you know that he usually plays golf with members of congress and his own administration and thus is most likely talking shop with them? Did you know his golf outings are like blowing off some steam on a weekend? Did you know its not like he's flying to Pebble Beach every weekend to play golf? You probably didn't know all of this because you keep your head in the Fox hole.

Dear Cult of Personality:

Speaking as a "black", did you know that I don't need your permission or approval to vote for whomever the @#$# I want for whatever $#@$@# reason I want?

And I don't owe you any explanation.

So take your white entitlement syndrome elsewhere - we voted, counted the votes, and the NEGRO WON.

And he is doing ONE HELL OF A JOB!

So get over it already! Don't nobody have to explain SH!T to you, got it?

Wooohoooo Nash! Fired up and ready to go!

Great response, Nash. This honkie voted for the Negro candidate, and has not had one moment of regret. I will do it again in 2012, and look forward to another 4 years of having a fellow human being in charge.

Me too Drive-By - does that mean I suffer from white guilt?

Nice smack down Nash! I am SO sick & tired with the race baiting!

I do not follow anyone blindly. Why is it so difficult for you to believe anyone who is not like you can look at the facts and make an intelligent decision? What does that say about your view of others? Are you trying to offend people on purpose or are we just a bit tone deaf?

How true. She is comparing Natural Disasters to man made ones. I asked her if she would compare a hurricane to dropping a nuclear bomb. NO response.

Jomama72 - because the republicans own the media and don't want people to realize things are getting better. that's why it is not being reported.

Good point, jomama72-

For example, regarding the latest job creation data available, in May the economy created 431,000 jobs...411,000 of those were temporary Census Department positions.

The economy created a whopping 42,000 private sector jobs in May...in a nation of nearly 310 million.

The economy needs to create about 100,000 private sector jobs per month simply to accomodate the numbers of young people entering the job market for the first time...that doesn't even take into account jobs for people currently unemployed.

THIS information actually was reported.

Why didn't you see it?

Hey Bag Boy,

Did you happen to also read into those employment numbers that, beginning in December of 2007, the economy lost 750,000 on average PER MONTH? I will take Obama's 42,000 jobs CREATED over Dubya's 750,000 jobs LOST or SHIPPED OVERSEAS any day.

If the economy needs 100,000 jobs per month just to keep pace with population growth and demographics, how long would it take to reach that level if we were still losing 750,000 per month? I know, I know, it is all Obama's fault because in the run up to the 2008 election, businesses were eliminating tons of jobs because they were predicting Obama would win and they did not want to hand him any rosy predictions as to the future. I mean, they would not want to give credit to someone that turned a loss of 750,000 into a GAIN of $42,000 would they?

You are correctly holding Bush responsible for his deficiencies...you're halfway there, friend.

That's why the Dems need to be on TV as much as possible, talking as much as possible, regarding the good news that is out there, rather than laying back and letting the Republicans lie their a$$es off like they have for the last 1 1/2 years. Where's the DNC guy and all the Dem Governors and the Senators and Representatives. If they can't get on Fox, then they can sure get on CNN and MSNBC and on other nightly news shows. That is the one thing I do not understand. During the campaign there was a pressing and methodical march to victory that went on day in and day out. For the campaign perhaps that was appropriate, but now governing is different and he and the Dems need to get as many people as they can on their side in order to actually fulfill the dreams we the people have.

I'm also frustrated about that Cathy. The #1 guest on Meet the Press in 2009 was...Newt Gingrich? When someone is on any of the networks as a live interview it runs mostly Republican, and when you pull out people who speak directly for the White House it's overwhelmingly so. Even when GW was in the WH the majority of non-administration interviews were also GOP.

That is scary. I wonder how many more people are out there with the same view. Maybe this is a good example of how the media can influence even intelligent people. There was some nut I saw that claims the BP spill is a government doing (IE President Obama). Go figure.

Hi Pat -- I saw the plane hit the Pentagon with my own eyes. Tell your friend he's full of s**t.

Oh boy,

Here we go.

I think the vast majority of folks know what happened on 9/11.

But, hey...

What can you do about the Rosie O'Donnells of the world, Pat?

Disabled

Thanks for the agreement earlier on polling. As a Navy Veteran you should be familiar with the U.S.S. LIBERTY incident. For all you ignorants reading along, Lyndon Johnson and MacNamara had the Israelis attack our own service men in the Mediterranean Sea so they could use it as a pretext to attack Egypt if they felt that necessary during the six-day-war. Same thing with the Pentagon on 9/11. The COVER-UP cannot be denied. VaDOT video of the SkyHawk painted to look like American Airlines has been confiscated and suppressed for nine years. How did the FBI know that they needed to confiscate that tape before copies could be made of it? DNA from dead bodies doesn't prove anything about how or where those bodies were killed.

Scary!

Bill Fairfax

How do you know what plane it was that you saw? Did you get its serial number off of its landing gear? Cause they've never been matched up. Now tell us that you have no ties to the military-industrial-complex.

Bill, I had no idea you saw that plane on September 11th. Thanks for letting me know.

MB, I don't like Rosie and never have. It's crazy what people believe. And scary.

Pat

Stop being traumatized by 9/11, hence your emotional "crazy" , "scary" responses, and think about it. How did the hijackers know that they would be able to execute their plan? We have been able to fly aircraft remotely for more than fifty years. In this digital world do you really think that the flight computer on a fly-by-wire-aircraft cannot be run remotely, just like a predator or globalhawk drone? The classified program which allows the FAA overide is called HOMERUN. You will never be told that it has ever been employed..... because its classified.

Bill has been "ordered" to lie to you. If he saw a plane fly into the Pentagon, he would have gotten out his cellphone and called 911 right? Bet you a million bucks he didn't bother.

I know some people who don't believe the plane in Pa. really went down, either. A lot of conspiracy theorists out there!

Paul -- where the hell are you coming from? Are you seriously suggesting the U.S. government remotely piloted a plane to crash into the Pentagon? The lefties around here think the Tea Party folks are nuts, but you're nuttier than every fruitcake since the beginning of time.

By all means, share with us the extensive documentation you've amassed to support your point of view. And please spare us from tapping into some lunatic fringe website, try showing us some sources normal folks would respect.

You ask 'how did the hijackers know that they would be able to execute their plan?' You've got to be kidding. Nobody knows whether they will be able to execute their plans, that's why they call it a plan. Does Brett Favre know he will complete the pass drawn up in the plan for the play he called in the huddle? Sometimes plan work, sometimes they don't. On 9/11 they worked, so give me a break.

And explain to me the relationship between my presumed 'ties to the military-industrial complex' and my eyes. How does where I work or what I do affect what I see?

So put up or shut up Paul, there's bigger fish to fry around here.

Bill

You know how this works, douche. I tell the truth and you call me a liar, I tell you you and everyone else how I know what I know and you will call me a traitor. You claim to have seen a plane fly into the Pentagon "with your own eyes". We all see with our eyes, douche. If you saw it live you must work near the Pentagon, my guess Crystal City. Did you call 911? Are you going to answer even one of my questions, douche? How did you identify the plane? You would have to have access to the Pentagon to even have a chance to do so. The flight data recorder indicates that the commercial flight missed the Pentagon, what you saw was a SkyHawk painted to look like AA.

Bill

You know how this works, douche. I tell the truth and you call me a liar, I tell you you and everyone else how I know what I know and you will call me a traitor. You claim to have seen a plane fly into the Pentagon "with your own eyes". We all see with our eyes, douche. If you saw it live you must work near the Pentagon, my guess Crystal City. Did you call 911? Are you going to answer even one of my questions, douche? How did you identify the plane? You would have to have access to the Pentagon to even have a chance to do so. The flight data recorder indicates that the commercial flight missed the Pentagon, what you saw was a SkyHawk painted to look like AA.

Is there a way to put this troll on "ignore"?

The truth? The truth?

Wow, Paul you are out there in never never land. A Skyhawk painted to look like an American Airlines plane, eh? Would that be a Cessna Skyhawk you're referring to? Sorry to burst your balloon pal, but I didn't see a single engine Cessna crash into the Pentagon, I saw a four engine jetliner. With easily recognizable American Airlines markings, clearly viewed from my vantage point. So explain to me again how I didn't see what I saw. And I'm still waiting for the objective documentation that supports your twisted theory.

Wow, I have never bought that conspiracy theory but apparently your friend has. How could he explain the witnesses who saw the planes hit the buildings?

Paul:

Man you are outa' yo f@$$ mind. You need to chill with that BS.

Now I know that Bill is a liar. He says that he saw a FOUR ENGINE plane hit the Pentagon. He's a LIAR folks. None of the planes involved in the supposed hijackings had four engines, so much for your eye witnesses. Did you call 911 and tell them that you, " just saw a four engine airliner fly into the Pentagon." I bet not.

My apologies to the board for misstating the number of engines on the plane. I know that significantly detracts from my credibility in relating what I saw, and I am humbled by that.

Absolutely no apologies to you, Paul. Tell us again about the Cessna Skyhawk. And tell us why so many other eyewitnesses didn't see a single engine Cessna. As to calling 911, are you f**king nuts? At that time in that situation, calling 911 was about the last thing on my mind. Particularly considering our building was directed to evacuate because no one knew what might be coming next.

So stop trying to wheezle out of this: provide the objective documentation that supports your twisted theory of what happened that day.

Who said anything about a Cessna, except you? Nothing I have said can be proven wrong, unlike you. You were humbled in your first attempt to document what you claim to have seen. If I tell you the truth you call me crazy, if I tell you how I know the truth you will call me a traitor. But you are the one who won't answer direct questions and have already been caught in a falsehood. Pathetic really. Most of us can do more than one thing at a time Bill. Calling 911 on your cell phone is about as easy as it gets. If you don't know what is coming next what makes you think evacuating makes you any safer?

I acknowledge my error and apoligize for it, and you call that pathetic? You have a curious sense of propriety, but thanks for showing what kind of person I'm 'debating' with. But even from my damaged position I'll till take you on because you have no game.

So it wasn't a Cessna? Fine, tell us what it was. And don't just drop an unsupported assertion, prove it. And stop hiding behind this crazy traitor BS. Either you've got the goods or you don't. And whatever goods you might have will either stand up to the scrutiny of the white hot spotlight or it won't. Come on Paul, inquiring minds want to know.

Put up or STFU.

Bill, I hardly know who you are anymore. This really seems to have you rattled. The SkyHawk became the testbed for drone technology refinement prior to GlobalHawk and Predator. If I am a hijacker and the plane I try to hijack has HOMERUN software in its flight control computer, the chances that I, the hijacker, will actually control the outcome of the flight are slim to none. The "hijackers" plan had to ignore the likelyhood that their plan to fly planes into buildings would be easily defeated. You don't have to blow up a plane to disable it. Dumping all of its fuel would have kept them from reaching their targets. For their "plan" to succeed they had to have had inside help. Perhaps they thought they were all just part of some military preparedness DRILL.

You may not know who I am, but I know who you are: an all hat no cattle blowhard. And a loony one at that.

You say if you reveal how you know what you know people would call you a traitor. Let me throw that right back at you. If there is even a shred of evidence to support your hairbrained theory, then you would be a traitor for not coming forward. Daniel Ellsberg dumped the classified Pentagon Papers a generation ago, and many still consider him a hero. Your story would be an order of magnitude more explosive than anything he revealed.

So let's cut the crap. Either you're a traitor who is aiding and abetting the cover-up of an unspeakable crime by not revealing to the world what you 'know' about 9/11. Or, you're just plain full of s**t. I pick the latter. The burden is on you to prove me wrong.

What you fail to realize Bill is that the murder of Americans by Americans for the purpose of National Security Activities is NOT A CRIME. The revelation of National Security Secrets and assets, and the breaking of security oaths which protect them , is a crime. I do not intend to commit a crime in my efforts to avoid being labeled a liar by someone who has already displayed to the board their inability to see the truth. You don't know what you saw on 9/11, I do. Not only do you not know what you saw, you then mis-reported it to us as if it were a fact. Ellsberg is still considered a traitor by the Pat Buchanans of the world, one man's traitor is another man's patriot. Are you ever going to grow a pair and answer my questions of you?

So consider yourself proven wrong, Bill. And don't doubt that I do know who you are.

Did I not predict that you would present me with the liar/traitor false choice? You called it BS and then did exactly as I predicted. Did I not predict that I would catch you in a "LIE"/error? At this point it is clear to anyone who has read our exchange that the truth about 9/11 doesn't even matter to you. You could care less about those that were killed, it's just a political football to you. Sadly you could now claim that you had a family member killed that day and it wouldn't change a thing about your wanting to know the truth, you just don't want the FABLE of their deaths ruined by the truth that we did it to ourselves. The "hijackers" were paid actors who thought they were part of a 'live-fire' exercise. They didn't know that they were going to die with the passengers and crew that day.

So... you're just a crazy person then?

My goodness, now which one of us is rattled?

I'm proven wrong? You predicted I would present you with a false choice? You predicted you would catch me in an error? Just when did you predict all this? And just how is it that I've used this exchange as a political football? Or to put it another way, what kind of alternative universe are you living in?

The one where we faked the moon landing? The one where Hitler died of old age in Argentina? The one where Elvis is still in the building? I mean the one where you claim the hijackers were paid actors has even less credibility than those.

And the murder of Americans by Americans for the purpose of national security is not a crime??? Thanks for revealing that little tidbit to anyone who's actually still reading this trash.

You're just a legend in your own mind, you've got nothing. Just a fanciful, BS story that even Hollywood would reject. And spare me the oath baloney,that defense wouldn't even work at Nuremberg. So when will you grow a pair and come clean with how you know what you claim you know? The answer is there's no need to come clean because you're full of s**t.

Michael T.

Welcome to the discussion, that was an enlightened and enlightening contribution.

Bill Fairfax

I predicted that you would lie at 11:49. It's right there in the thread. Is this too difficult for you?

Thanks.

I do the best I can when presented with ludicrous nonsense.

:)

We've all been dealing with the "ludicrous nonsense" for nine years. What do you know about WTC7?

We've all been dealing with the "ludicrous nonsense" for nine years. What do you know about WTC7?

http://www.skyscraper.org/TALLEST_TOWERS/t_wtc.htm

I'm guessing you hear this a lot, "That's not it......" You make the mistake of thinking this is a joke. Barry Jennings worked for the city of New York, The E.O.C. was located on the 23rd floor of WTC7. Everyone in the security and rescue managment fields was expected to go there in an emergency. Rudy had been told years earlier that WTC complex was a likely terrorist target and putting the Emergency Operations Center there was a bad idea. He did it anyway. On 9/11 he didn't go there. Before the second plane hit the South tower, Jennings had gone up to the EOC, only to find it empty, recently evacuated. He and city attorney Michael Hess decided to leave and had to take the stairs. They made it down to the sixth floor when the stairwell blew up, they climbed back up to the eighth and broke a window to cry for help. The firemen ran away from them twice as the two towers on the other side of their building came crashing down. Eventually they were saved, until Barry started to talk to the "media" about his experience. He's dead now, mysterious explanations were given on how he died and when exactly. Michael Hess is keeping his mouth shut.

Well, if you keep looking, I am sure the truth is out there.

I'm guessing you hear this a lot, "That's not it......" You make the mistake of thinking this is a joke. Barry Jennings worked for the city of New York, The E.O.C. was located on the 23rd floor of WTC7. Everyone in the security and rescue managment fields was expected to go there in an emergency. Rudy had been told years earlier that WTC complex was a likely terrorist target and putting the Emergency Operations Center there was a bad idea. He did it anyway. On 9/11 he didn't go there. Before the second plane hit the South tower, Jennings had gone up to the EOC, only to find it empty, recently evacuated. He and city attorney Michael Hess decided to leave and had to take the stairs. They made it down to the sixth floor when the stairwell blew up, they climbed back up to the eighth and broke a window to cry for help. The firemen ran away from them twice as the two towers on the other side of their building came crashing down. Eventually they were saved, until Barry started to talk to the "media" about his experience. WTC7 came crashing down at 5:20 pm on 9/11/2001, it fell almost perfectly verticaly into its own basement and footprint. Little damage was done to the buildings around it. NIST has never been able to adequately explain it. Barry's dead now, mysterious explanations were given on how he died and when exactly. Michael Hess is keeping his mouth shut.

You might want to be cautious in your search though. I hear those Ragnorak Chips they put inside your skull are a really painful way to go.

I am not deliberately double posting, the system keeps telling me to try again because it can't post the first comment successfully. The truth is out there is a triple entendre. The Lone Gunmen was a spin-off of the X Files. Curiously they predicted 9/11 scenario months before it happened. You tube has a clip from the episode.

I am aware that it all sounds too crazy to believe or entertain as possible. That is why their evil works. Watch the video of Dr. Steven Wright on Tucker Carlson's show. You tell me that's not a curious reaction by the MSM to break a monumental news story. They refuse to play the video that the guest provided to them; it is supposed to be the focus of their discussion, yet they botch it and don't tell the guest.

All very true about the X-Files and the Lone Gunman.

But I must admit that I experience great sadness that you seem to have missed my other super-cool pop culture reference in this thread entirely.

See? It's much more fun to talk about this sort of thing.

The Ragnorak chips? Is that a pop culture reference? Sorry i missed it. Dr.Steven Jones not Wright on Tucker Carlson. Anyway, I am glad you are able to amuse yourself. No harm no foul. My guess would be Men in Black.

This is one of the reasons I support the President, because he was not intimated by Petraeus during his visit to Iraq.

Candidate Obama distinquish himself in my eyes by drawing a sharp contrast between the role of the General and the role of the President. This was a defining and a teaching moment for me.

Just a little racist Paul? I'd bet your a Glen Beck lemming, sounds like something that nut would say.

Silly Mo, didn't you get the memo? In today's wingnut-controlled media world only black people are racists and only Christians are targets of discrimination. I'm not sure how, as a white Christian male I can't see that in the world around me, but the talkers keep telling me so it must be.

My dearest Paul:

My, my, my there sure are alot of white folks feeling sorry for themselves all over the board this fine morning.

Memo from "blackville" . . . kiss my black $##.

President Obama EARNED the Presidency by getting the most votes. Period.

Now you rationalize that away however you want.

I really don't care what you think, seeing as you obviously don't bother to do it much.

Enjoy your trip to minority status where you can see first hand how it feels to be actually "oppressed" . . . and trust me, not getting to have ALL THE PRESIDENTS BE WHITE is not the worst that can happen.

Geez.

Paul, prior to the first Black President, Blacks voted for "white" candidates and no one questioned their choice, why now?

Apparently the tipping point for this to be considered 'black racism' occurs somewhere between 90% and 94%.

Dukakis - 90%

Gore - 90%

Kerry - 90%

Obama - 94%

So what exactly is the percentage point where it goes from your political philosophy being almost universally hostile to their race and it being 'racism by the blacks?'

Here's a news flash and a tip. Black people don't vote for Republicans because you're full of racist dumbasses like Farley who say with an absolute straight face that all of Mississippi's problems are because there are too many black people who live there. And the sad thing is that they will deny to their dying day that they are racist dumbasses even though it is glaringly apparent that they are.

So tone down the dumbasses in the party, stop characterizing the entire race as shiftless, welfare queen, leeches who never work and are sponging off of your tax dollars and shut up the obvious racists like Farley before they screw up the image you are trying to portray, then one day - not any time soon, mind you - but ONE DAY, you might end up getting a higher percentage of the black vote.

Until then, just keep latching onto the nearest convenient excuse like the reason that black people aren't voting for your clueless asses is because they are secretly all racists even though the vast majority of candidates they vote for are white.

And what was the justification for the Southern whites, wealthy whites, and the other demographic that voted against him? Could some of those been because he was black? Just like women were for Hillary? Your supposition makes no sense. There are many Americans, black and white, who supported President Obama. What happened to the 6% that didn't? Maybe it's because one party is mostly white, good old boys and gals, straight, wealthy, entitled?

And maybe those who supported the Democratic candidate still believe in "we the people" and in a diverse, secular society.

Mikey Thompson: No offense, but I liked you a lot better yesterday when you were depressed, delusional, miserable and seemingly ready to slit your own wrists (figuratively, of course). If I remember correctly the converstaion you are talking about, I was responding to another mindless attack on Southerners (Mississippians in particular) by Eric The 8th Grader.

My point was, if Miss. DOES have the highest teenages birthrate and lowest high school grad rate, as he claimed, it was unfair to blame it on the governor. I was merely pointing out that Miss. has the highest population of Black people (fact) in the union. Since Black people disproportionately practice behavior that causes poverty and lack of education (fact), that MAYBE it tends to give an unfair stat on the state. I think someone later pointed out that Miss. was actually 9th or 10th. Eric was wrong. They are not first. There now. Doesn't that cheer you up? Now go get some ice cream and maybe a Xanax.

I don't need to rely on recollection, Chuck. I can repost exactly what you said:

Oh please. The reason Mississippi has such high teen pregnancy rates and low graduation rates is because it is also the state with the largest population of blacks. Black democrats, to be more specific. The stats are exactly the same wherever there are large numbers of poor blacks...high teen preganancy and low high school graduation rates.

Need I say more? You can try to cloak your racism with psuedo-intellectual 'stat reporting' all you want, but the fact remains that you started off with the conclusion you wanted to get across. Mississippi has problems because there are more black people living there than anywhere else. There was no 'maybe.' There was no 'perhaps.' You said point blank that Mississppi's problems were entirely based in race, specifically one type of race who are more numerous there than anywhere else.

Unlike some, I do not attribute the dislike of the right of the president to racism. By and large, I believe that it is a right/left issue for most, not a race/race issue. But if someone is, by his own words, in bright, glowing neon letters, an obvious racist, he is an obvious racist.

And when your party has people like you running around in it, I tend to doubt the percentage of black voters is going to shift to your party any time soon.

And by the way, the dumbass 'facts' you tried to use to support your racist conclusion are still flat out WRONG.

By many I assume you mean you and Beck Bolsheviks, you do know it's just a hand full of you nuts like your hero Beck that hate the USA this much. Your hate for Democrats shows your hate for the USA.

McCrystal and his staff were trash talking all their superiors like high school girls, I'm surprised they didn,t give an interview with Tiger Beat, or Seventeen magazine. These guys did not act like a great general and his crack staff. They could have been court marshaled, and if this would have been someone under the generals command doing this he probably would have been. In the Military a 19 year old has to take orders from a 23 year old, there is no tolerance in the military for insubordination. There is no tolerance anywhere for public insubordination, I don't know anybody who could publicly insult all their bosses and keep their position. Nobody that has served in the military can, or has, or will defend this guys actions. This guy (and his staff) burned himself down. Mother Theresa would have fired this guy.

Actually John the numbers in June of year 2 were:

Reagan 45%, Clinton 46% and GWB 73% (note: it was less than a year since the 9/11 attack for “W”)

http://www.gallup.com/poll/politics.aspx

My bad, Dennis. GWB's ratings were certainly dismal on 9/10/01. He's still in the ballpark and has run consistently ahead of those others for most of his Presidency. Thanks for the correction.

Even Joe and Mika were doubled over this AM. She is such a jerk. I think the real sad part is that she may really believe it.

I heard about the Pensacola "visitor" this morning and it's really depressing and sickening. We are having some oiling of our beaches here in Bama and a large patch made it up into Mobile Bay as well.

I have done some reading concerning oil well killing and I am of the opinion that once the relief well makes contact with the blown well at several 1000 feet down it will be able to kill it. The trick will be hitting the blown well with the relief well drill.

Once the connection is made heavy drilling mud is pumped into the flow of oi in the blown out well shaft. As the flow pushes the heavy drilling mud upwards towards the surface the weight of the drilling mud in the shaft builds up until the friction of the drilling mud and its weight equal out the pressure and then over come it. The flow and the well are effectively killed and then concrete is pumped in and it's done.

BP is drilling far down to within a mere 2500 feet of what is called the "pay zone" which is where the oil flow begins. Hopefully this will get them below any fractures that could pose problems in stopping the well and also give them maximum length of well shaft to fill with heavy drilling mud creating enough weight (hopefully) to stop the flow.

I am a true lover of nature and this well has devastated me personally as well as my friends. Every day this thing keeps blowing is another day I have to deal with depression over all of this. Some people here regularly make statements that the people of the Southeast are getting what they deserve because they elected whomever they elected or whatever...

These opinions are typical of this kind of situation and they are held by the same types of people who claimed that Katrina victims deserved their fate because they knew hurricanes hit the area, or people in Cali deserve their fate for building on fault lines or gay people deserve aids because they knew the risks or the US deserved 9/11.

Nobody knew how corrupt MMS was or how they were deeply in bed with oil industry exec's until some time in 2008 and people here (just like people everywhere else) have been making their livings from the oil industry for decades. It's irrational to expect everyone to suddenly up end their lives and take on a new occupation just like it is irrational to expect us to be completely off of oil and on to renewables by next week and to make illogical statements that everyone in an entire region deserves condemnation because of a smaller group of people is beyond ignorant. It's just plain stupid.

No, we cannot just turn off oil by next week which is why Pres Obama authorized more even though his base would be unhappy. But we must begin investing more in alternative renewable sources. Instead of offering subsidies to oil, and tax breaks, we should discontinue those and offer it to USA renewable energy companies to encourage it.

Nashville_fan: Unreal isn't it? And people listen to that nonsense.

It blows my mind daily Pat.

Okay, NF...Just for sake of argument here...You know I like you and everything.. ;-)

But, do you think that Petraeus could have bargained with president Obama any in taking this position? I mean, Obama isn't an unreasonable man and he is certainly the type to show gratitude even though he is the commander in chief. The ability for the potus to be thoughtful in showing gratitude as the most powerful man in the world is one reason we all like him so much.

So, do you think that the president will really force Petraeus to stick to the original plan or do you think he will listen to his new general's arguments and give him at least most of what he wants? And, maybe it was this observation that the talking heads were making albeit very badly...

I personally do not think Petraeus will use his successes and popularity to upstage nor talk down his CIC so that part of the discussion quoted above doesn't seem to hold much water for me but he might use a bit of "gratitude capital", so to speak, to get a few extras.

The President was sending a message yesterday to EVERYONE, but it seems the pundits did'nt get it.

His message was "you aint that big that I can't fire your $5^&. How Matthews and company missed that is beyond me.

M.Fisher,

I think the President is going to do what he thinks is best for the National Security interests of this country. Period.

And I think that whatever decision he makes will not be based on "gratitude" to General Petraeus or anybody else, but on his honest and realistic assesment of the situation in Afghanistan.

And I think that the media's jaw is just going to hit the ground when those troops start coming home in 2011 just like the President said.

Just like they are going to come out of Iraq this summer, just like the President said. And Gen. Petraeus wasn't on board with that either, but then again, he ain't President.

And I think that the media's refusal to accept the fact that President Obama IS in charge is starting to rub me the wrong way.

P.S. Thanks for the kind words . . . you're not so bad yourself.

Matthews thinks he's the smartest pundit on TV, but he does bow down to Glen Beck his mentor.

the President is going to do what he thinks is best for the National Security interests of this country.

I never made this argument and if the president gives Petraeus more troops or time doesn't necessarily mean that it's not "best for the national security...."

I think that the media's refusal to accept the fact that President Obama IS in charge is starting to rub me the wrong way

I would agree with you on both points. The president is treated with disrespect by congress and the media and most recently his general. And, yes, I am picking up that you are getting frustrated.

Nashville. I started listening to the post speech chatter yesterday but as you posted, it was so ridiculous that I shut it off knowing I would get better discussion on First Read.

Why would Obama pick Bush's general to replace McCrystal. Bush sucks right, that's our motto. I mean we all remember General "Betrayus", right? Is it ok to support the general now, because Obama picked him even though three years ago he was a traitor and liar? Enlighten me

Eric,

The poll released yesterday had a question on how people feel about SP endorsements. The numbers were less than flatering. Hey. maybe there is something to this polling crap.