Me too, Feisty.

Good Morning Feisty:

There is little doubt in my mind that he will win. He can beat Romney, Huckabee, Pence, Huckabee, Gingrich, Palin, and Barbour. Guess that's about everybody. To get the Republican nod, you have to be a Republican for years and years, i.e. McCain, Dole, Bush. There are no new thoroughbreds in the Republican stable.

The one thing the Democrats have to contend with are the lies, half-lies, untruths coming from Fox News. President Obama is aware that the message was lost at times and they will need to regain their voice.

Good seeing you out and about this morning.

Good Morning to you too Ron & Tom!

The other thing to keep in mind is the Republican party has p!ssed off the Hispanic vote for the foreseeable future...

And after witnessing the circus between the 'old guard' & the 'tea bagges' that will begin on 1.3.11 the Independents will come running back to the Democrats in DROVES in 2012!

PS: Does anyone know if Drudge or Fox is giving something away for free this morning? Seems our usual suspects are MIA... lol

The Republican candidates have a "brand problem." President Obama set himself apart as a "change" candidate and IS a marked change from President George W. Bush. What would Gov. Romney's brand be? Gov. Pataki? Gov. Pawlenty? Notice also how many governors dot the list of "potential" candidates. The Republicans seem to prefer state executives (President Bush, President Reagan, for example) so Rep. Pence and Sen. Thune, not to mention former speaker Newt Gingrich, won't fare well within the party.

This is a dumb poll but I guess most are. It all depends on the state of the country and who the Republican nominee is. He could turn the economy around but still get beat by Tim Pawlenty because a majority of people don't like healthcare reform OR the economy could double dip and he would win because the nominee was Sarah Palin. I predict people will slowly start to like healthcare reform, the economy will improve slightly, Republicans will actually nominate someone who can win and Obama will lose by a slim margin ala 2000.

Makes two of us Feisty

One thing you all seem to have missed is how the census of 2010 is going to affect his reelection bid. It certainly helps the rethugs by redistributing the electoral college to states favoring the red. While it doesn't hand the rethuglicants the WH it makes his reelection much more difficult. I'm wondering if Joe Biden will leave the ticket, to be replaced by Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately it would be an even sleazier ticket but one much harder for the rethugs to beat, esp. with the pathetic group currently showing an interest in running. I haven't decided yet whether I'll vote for Obama again. I have serious misgivings about how he has handled himself but this current crop of rethugs, along with their predecessor, bush/cheney, make the thought of a return to rethug control scary to say the least.

As a separate thought concerning the electoral college it is way past time to due away with it and elect the President by popular vote.

Your concerns about the census are valid, but it remains to be seen how much difference they'll actually make. The gains are mostly in urban areas and in states that have seen increases in Hispanic population. At first blush the census looked to be pure gain for Republicans, I think it won't be that simple when the details start to come out in a few months.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn’t be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO– 68%, IA –75%, MI– 73%, MO– 70%, NH– 69%, NV– 72%, NM– 76%, NC– 74%, OH– 70%, PA — 78%, VA — 74%, and WI — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE –75%, ME — 77%, NE — 74%, NH –69%, NV — 72%, NM — 76%, RI — 74%, and VT — 75%; in Southern and border states: AR –80%, KY — 80%, MS –77%, MO — 70%, NC — 74%, and VA — 74%; and in other states polled: CA — 70%, CT — 74% , MA — 73%, MN – 75%, NY — 79%, WA — 77%, and WV- 81%.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR (6), CT (7), DE (3), DC (3), ME (4), MI (17), NV (5), NM (5), NY (31), NC (15), and OR (7), and both houses in CA (55), CO (9), HI (4), IL (21), NJ (15), MD (10), MA(12), RI (4), VT (3), and WA (11). The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 76 electoral votes — 28% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2208145434#

This poll merely reflects the bias of msnbc.

If you took a poll of the 'tea party', it would probably show about 20% yes and 80% no.

So what's the point, other than showing the political perspective of the followers of msnbc, few as they may be.

mvymvy "The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)."

It would also guarantee that all of the campaigning would be in the big cities. In fact, it probably would have meant that the first 30 Presidents would have been from N Y City and nominated by the corrupt Tammany Hall machine.

i CONCUR WITH mR. wILSON, the poll is a bias MSNBC survey. Had conservatives been included in the analysis, you would see a greater disapproval of Barry than what the results illustrated. The overall American Joe stated his dissatisfaction with the Dem controlled congress during this last election. As Barry insults the left and right both, you will see his approval ratings drop dramatically.

As I stated before the previous election, watch Hill & Bill, who have no love for Barry. I can accept a Hill probably, with Bill in charge of the selection process of the interns. What a laugh we can have during that process. And will Hill be any better or worse than Barry? Not possible liberals.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.

When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods, the big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.

In California state-wide elections, for example, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles.

If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a "big city" approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn't be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.

Under a national popular vote, every vote everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every vote is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

I'm in. Obama 2012.

MVYMVY. Where are you getting your statistics? You are way off. I think I realize the reason for this. The city I live in, Sacramento, has roughly 300,000 people in it. The smaller suburbs and cities that surround us and are one with us without any empty space in between makes us an area of 1 million. No one goes by cities anymore. Larger, more populated, areas around a capital city like ours or maybe San Francisco or Los Angeles will always get more attention. If you looked down on Los Angeles from the grapevine and all the cities surrounding it, it is huge and it is all LA. Even if they like to call themselves; Santa Barbara, Hollywood, Pasadena, Orlando, Redlands, Anaheim, Huntington Beach, etc. etc. etc. I think you get the picture. I'm saying you can't just count LA. Pull out the map and count all the adjoining cities and towns that boarder LA without any space in between. That is the demographic you are looking at. Big cities and their surrounding towns will always control the outcome of a national election. Regardless of the laws you try to pass to make smaller more rural areas have a bigger say. Anyway, that is what the senate was designed for wasn't it? To give an equal voice to smaller states.

Now Now Ana,,,,,,,,,,,The town I live in (2 miles down a deadend road from the town square) has Pop of 113,,,,,,,,,,,,We wanna vote 2

OBAMMER 2012!!!!!! He's not a Muslim,,,,,,,,,,,He is a true BUD-ist (green and stinkin' LOL)

No thanks. Rather have someone with some experience beyond a community organizor and group voter (Senator) with a whopping 2 years on the job.

Someone who is truly transparent in what they do, makes solid decisions on cabinet appointments.

Prefer a President who is focused on the job and not being a celebrity.

And someone who is more interested in protecting Americans than defending illegal aliens and Islamic terrorists.

Or doesn't escelate a lost war in Afghanistan.

A President that is pro-business vs pro-union. Who understands free enterprise.

A President who grasps cutting federal spending is a key to individual success versus growing Government dependence by a larger majority of Americans.

A leader who is willing to say to the world "we are unique in America, that is why your people flock to our country, we do not wish to be like the rest of the world in every aspect".

ANYONE but Obama.

And maybe we can get lucky and not have another candidate who has political and religious mentors that are bigots and racists. Wright and Emil Jones.

Who does the Republicans have to pit against Barry? Their top runners are a Mormon, a Southern Baptist and the Tea Party still likes the Alaskan quitter who can't shoot for sh1t!

Liberals are like little Nazis.

They care about no one but themselves while believing they have the right to tell everyone else how to live.

Way to Godwin the argument, slimsignet. Thanks for showing right up front that your argument has no merit.

Conservatives are BIG forking Nazis! Tribbing that is.

Obama, Re-Elected? Now you are wishing for miracles to go with that change you ordered.

All you have to do is go to the tapes of the promises made during the primary and general election.

He has not done one thing, Gitmo..Still open, Lobbyists even in his cabinet, An Administration that is held accountable,..... Hey Napolitano, the system worked right. Arizona Border control...... Obama sides with Mexico against the will of U.S. People.

Obama...Re-elected... Snow balls chance in July in Phoenix Arizona..LMAO

The fact is that a candidate cannot win a statewide election in California by only concentrating on Los Angeles. When Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, and Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for governor, Los Angeles did not receive all the attention; these four recent Republican governors did not carry Los Angeles; and Los Angeles certainly did not control the election’s outcome. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without winning big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states. The biggest cities in those states typically voted Democratic, but the suburbs, exurbs, small towns, and rural parts of the states often voted Republican. If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.

The origins of the myth about big cities stems from the belief that big cities are bigger than they are and that big cities account for much more of the nation’s population than they do.

Television advertising (the largest component of presidential campaigns) is premium-priced in the major metropolitan areas.

Television time is far less expensive, on a per-impression basis, in small towns and rural media markets than in larger media markets. It is, for example, considerably more expensive to buy television or radio time to reach Ohio’s 11 million people than to buy television or radio time to reach the 11 million people who live in the 12 smallest non-competitive states (i.e., the six “red” states of Alaska, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota and the six “blue” states of Hawaii, Maine, Vermont, Rhode Island, Delaware, and the District of Columbia).

These facts explain why some Republicans have argued that the National Popular Vote compact is good for the Republican Party because it is a tax on the Democrats. This argument is at least consistent with the economic reality that television advertising is premium-priced in heavily Democratic big cities. However, Democrats needs not worry about the “big city tax” because they easily evade this “tax” by purchasing media time on a nationwide basis. In fact, both parties will almost certainly avoid this “tax” by campaigning in the smaller media markets where the per-impression cost is lower or by campaigning nationwide on network television.

Ed-1556361

You are under the impression that the Republicans will keep their promises in the next year and a half. I hope you are not naive enough to think that this "Pledge to America" will be any different than the "Contract with America." I will bet that this cute little pledge is already collecting dust on Boehner’s shelf.

When people go to the polls in 2012 they will be freshly reminded what the Republican Party's goal is: to produce as many trillionaires as possible regardless of what happens to the hard working American. Fewer jobs? Who cares, as long as the profit margin increases for their corporate buddies. Health insurance premiums increasing? Who cares as long as the profit margin increases for their corporate buddies. The national debt increasing? Who cares as long as the 2/3rds of corporations doing business in this country continue NOT to pay taxes - the little guy will pick up the tab., etc.

I guess (unfortunately though) we must wait to see how fiscally irresponsible Republicans really are.

Fiesty, HELL NO.

USAFVET76

No thanks. Rather have someone with some experience beyond a community organizor and group voter (Senator) with a whopping 2 years on the job.

Like Bush had experience? He bankrupted 2 companies and a nation.

Someone who is truly transparent in what they do, makes solid decisions on cabinet appointments.

Like Bush who lied about WMD, ignored warnings about 9/11 because he was too busy playing golf? Like his VP who made deals with his buddies at Halliburton behind closed doors?

And someone who is more interested in protecting Americans than defending illegal aliens and Islamic terrorists.

Once again - Bush ignored warnings about 9/11. He had legit intel about terrorists plotting attacks with commercial planes but could not be bothered at his ranch in Texas.

Or doesn't escelate a lost war in Afghanistan.

This one is priceless. Can you say Iraq that costs $9billion a month with no end in sight? But the "Mission Accomplished" was a huge PR for mister GWB.

A President that is pro-business vs pro-union. Who understands free enterprise.

Yes, we do know how pro-business was GWB and the Dick Cheney. No secret there. The Housing Market bubble bursting and the 2008 Financial Meltdown are fine example of that.

A President who grasps cutting federal spending is a key to individual success versus growing Government dependence by a larger majority of Americans.

During his eight years in office, President Bush oversaw a large increase in government spending. In fact, President Bush increased government spending more than any of the six presidents preceding him, including LBJ. In his last term in office, President Bush increased discretionary outlays by an estimated 48.6 percent.

During his eight years in office, President Bush spent almost twice as much as his predecessor, President Clinton -who by the way left Bush a surplus). Adjusted for inflation, in eight years, President Clinton increased the federal budget by 11 percent. In eight years, President Bush increased it by a whopping 104 percent.

A leader who is willing to say to the world "we are unique in America, that is why your people flock to our country, we do not wish to be like the rest of the world in every aspect".

United States has become an international pariah. Certainly no American President has ever been so despised throughout the world as Bush. He attacked a small sovereign country under the cover of lies and false pretenses resulting in an ongoing struggle causing deaths of over 100,000 of its citizens and thousands of American lives.

So please, list the horrible things that Obama did. I know he did not produce his birth certificate when the tea baggers demanded. He did bail out GM who is not only paying off the bailout but continued to employ Americans and is on the way to be a healthy corporation. I know that thanks to him, sick children will no longer be dropped like a bad habit by the greedy health insurance corporations for pure profit.

You know what? You are right. Let's elect another Bush to start another war with another country. There are few countries we could get oil out of.

I LOVE your Spirit....

If the economy turn around AND if jobs are created, maybe. Many of the above poster also believed the Dem would retain their majority in Nov. bayllie, was it civil war Bush's fault? your post is full or rose color glasses comments and lack objectivity, you are just as polarized at the far right posters- lay off the kool-aid.

Atlas shrugging

Criticizing without a shred of an argument, are we?

What is it that you disagree with so maybe I can answer your question?

Hiding behind quotes like "laying off Kool-aid" is not really thought provoking.

Please entertain me with your Glenn Beck like interpretation of your "truth."

And someone who is more interested in protecting Americans than defending illegal aliens and Islamic terrorists.

You may want to rethink this one. He has already deported more illegals than anybody, and need I comment on going after terrorists?

Hope. Yes. I'm optimistic. If the economy declines further and the GOP finds a charismatic candidate (like Reagan was) we may be in for 4 years of trouble, with a Republican president reversing Obama's reversals of Bush's policies, more conservative judges getting lifetime benches to spread the stench of conservative, etc.

Even Reagan would not be elected by the Republicans of today. Remember, he's the one who signed START (or was it SALT ?) with the godless communists reducing our ability to defend ourselves. <sarcasm>

Hey! A clear Repug canidate? How about running John McCain again.

so long as there is a significant decrease in unemployment between now and then and the economy contnues to improve

Not when people are paying double the mortgage they should be. Everyone who bought or took cash out of their house from 2003 to 2009 is in way too deep to be of any use to the economy. No disposable income - they are slammed with debt each month when that huge bill comes in. I can see some kind of 'free ride' or 'loan fogiveness' coming from our babysitters, but this will merely worsen inflation.

How about running John McCain again.

Mitt Romney will be running against Obama.

Ron,

Huckabee, Pawlenty, Trump, Barbour, & Romney all have a chance to win. Come on your talking like the President has a 75% approval rating right now.

Ed

Ed: I responded on the above thread.

President Obama's approval rating is not at 75%, but I recall after 9/11 Bush 43's rating was in the high 80's and he lost. Approval ratings are only part of the picture. Another piece of the puzzle is how the Republicans have treated the gay community and the Hispanic community. You can not discard significant portions of the population and still win.

Lets continue the dialogue on the above thread.

Ed, he doesn't need a 75% approval rating...his approval is higher than Reagan or Clinton at this point in their presidencies and they both won reelection with margin to spare. http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx

Thanks John B: You are the man with the facts.

You guys are proving my point. All I'm trying to say is anything can happen. You are dismissing other GOP candidates like Obama has a 75% approval rating right now. If Sarah Palin can come within 6% in a Democratic wave anything can happen. That's all I'm saying. Nobody knows where we will be come 2012.

"Another piece of the puzzle is how the Republicans have treated the gay community and the Hispanic community. You can not discard significant portions of the population and still win." Kind of like the Democrats with the white working class in 2010? I'll admit Republicans need to make a little progress with the Hispanic community but Democrats are doing just fine alienating significant portions of their coalition.

“I recall after 9/11 Bush 43's rating was in the high 80's and he lost.” Bush 43 won re-election in 2004.

I think President Obama will be reelected in 2012,

I see a fun race, and if the republicans can get their act together, I see a tough road ahead for the president.

so long as there is a significant decrease in unemployment between now and then and the economy contnues to improve (even if slowly). If unemployment continues to rise and the economy gets worse, I believe it becomes more complicated for the President.

I would even go so far as to say if things stagnate between now and then it will be complicated. The rally cry for the republicans would be "you're not better off, hope and change didn't work".

I also think that if the President is serious about working with the Republicans to enact meaningful tax code reform, spending cuts across the board and pushing for a balanced budget that his strength will increase with independents as well.

Holy cow I just spit out my coffee. Working with the republicans? He caved. He could have let the tax cuts expire and been in a better position to bring about bipartisanship, but he caved. There is also no way on earth he will have a balanced budget.

I think the 2012 race is President Obama's to lose and do not see a clear Republican candidate (with a meaningful chance to win) as yet.

I like Bobby Jindal to run against him, though he may wait this one out.

The president must get things done in the next two years and that means compromising with the Republicans and insuring that he maintains the support of the Democrats while he compromises.

That may be easier said than done. Caving in to the republicans will erode his support.

The President must excel at governing to the same degree that he has excelled at campaigning in the past.

Slow down there. You're asking him to put away his teleprompter and govern?

He must be able to put ideology and agenda aside (and convince both sides to do the same) in order to get things done for the U.S. HE can do it and we all need to help him do it.

"Republicans can come along, but they have to ride in the back."
"Elections have consequences, and I won."

Those don't sound like the words of being able to do it to me.

Again it is Obama's to lose at this point.

Uhhh...he is the current president, so yeah, it is his to lose.

See post #17

Barry will not be elected to a second term. See previous posts. The liberal element believes the MSNBC folks, but they don't focus on who from their party can defeat this guy.

After getting relected Obama will mainly focus on how to bbe a Billionaire. Aftere re-election Progressives will be screwed big time and will beat their chest.

If progressives want to re-elect they better get iron clad promises from him:

(1) He will accept federal campaign funds in Preswidential election

(2) He will not cut deals with big companies away from sunshine.

(3) He will work for Average Americans and not big corporations

(4) He will not take campaign contribution from big companies.

These are to start with

RAJ@CHICAGOMAN.COM

Raj Patel,

Why are you telling me what I need from my president. Speak for yourself not me. You live in a Republic. You elect a leader and hope he does good things for you but being a Republic you have to trust him to make decisions for you. If you don't you won't vote for him again. I didn't agree with the Bailout. He proved me wrong by making it work and getting almost all of it back already. I don't agree with his health care act. I wan't Medicare for all with everyone paying into it as soon as they have income. This healthcare I completely disagree with him on however as it is it is better than nothing. I will always vote for anyone running on Medicare for all. Even if they are a Republican.

Those items you are asking of our President you should also demand of the Republicans. But you don't because you are a Republican owned and operated by the very corporations you want Obama to remain against. How does it feel when someone else talks for you Raj? Doesn't sound good does it?

do you include yourself????

Not since you've offered yourself up as an example, yet again.

According to one Rand biographer, most people first read Rand's works in their "formative years."^[124] Rand's former protégé Nathaniel Branden referred to Rand's "especially powerful appeal to the young,"^[125] while Onkar Ghate of the Ayn Rand Institute said Rand "appeals to the idealism of youth."^[126] This appeal has alarmed a number of critics of the philosophy.^[127] Many of these young people later abandon their positive view of Rand and are often said to have "outgrown" her ideas.^[128] Supporters of Rand's work recognize the phenomenon, but attribute it to the loss of youthful idealism and inability to resist social pressures for intellectual conformity.^[126][128] In contrast, Jennifer Burns says some critics "dismiss Rand as a shallow thinker appealing only to adolescents," although Burns thinks the critics "miss her significance" as a "gateway drug" to right-wing politics.^[129]

Ayn Rand.

Boring to drop the race issue again. Is there ever another issue but race when opposing your candidate?

Bev,

FYI: Defunding Programs will not help the Party of "Nope" either. There are 50 million uninsured Americans. The Party of "Nope" wants to insure 3 million. And, the hot young gun, Paul Ryan's pathway to" privatize Social Security' will bring the Seniors out against the greedy Party of "Nope".

Wrong!

Also in recent days, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have been spreading misinformation on Twitter about Social Security. Both gave a link to a report by a liberal group that claims 104 Republicans in Congress want to "privatize" Social Security. Both re-tweeted a Think Progress tweet that said "REPORT: 104 Republicans In Congress Want To Privatize Social Security."

The report fits neatly into a major Democratic campaign theme that the Republicans will push "privatization" once they gain power. But as we have said again and again, it’s wrong to characterize what some Republicans want to do as a full "privatization." In our "Whoppers" article, we wrote: "Some Republican candidates and incumbents do favor allowing younger workers to invest some portion of their payroll taxes in the stock market, but few if any have supported replacing the current system entirely with a fully privatized system, like the one in Chile."

thetotas, please spare me dude, the Republicans have Social Security squarely in their cross-hairs, the description of how they intend to gut it is irrelevant, they want that money and will try any means available to take it away from the people who have it coming, get it? They hate Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits, welfare, education, poor people, I mean come on they don't even try to hide it anymore, Republicans are the party of the wealthy, they will kill to protect the wealthy, they are owned and operated by the wealthy. You really need to get out more, and please quit trying to put lipstick on a pig for the Republican Party, they will kick you to the curb when the chance comes my friend.

Bev

Thanks for the feedback

Your posts always make me think whether I agree 100% or not

I think we are both saying that Pres O and cooperation between the parties will be best for the country

Good ole "cut-and-paste Bev", always good for well, not much value.

I hate to say you are right, but you are, one would like to think even the Republicans were not evil enough to make the American people suffer just to set Obama up for 2012, but those that have been paying attention know they are.

Republican politicians would set up their own Momma (and are) if it would put a buck in their pockets

LOL, but you forgot to put the <sarcasm> tag on you post so some of the TP'ers would know what your really saying.

dirp. My bad :)

ED. Republicans do not have a brand problem, they have hypocrisy problem.

If you don't like the "Republican" brand, don't worry, they'll come up with a new one for the next election:

Moral Majority (neither moral or a majority)

Club for Growth

Chamber of Commerce

Taxed Enough Already Party

"If you don't like the "Republican" brand, don't worry, they'll come up with a new one for the next election"

And don't forget their slogans:

Patriots must support the President in times of war.

If a Supreme Court nominee is qualified, s(he) should be approved br Congress.

"Deficits don't matter" per, George W. Bush

Only wimps Cut and Run from the Middle East

The constituition is sacred, except for that part about freedom of religion, no unusual punishments, and the right to a trial.

The brand problem is a Dem issue. If it isn't, why then is Nancy spending $$$$$$$$$$$ trying to find an ad agency to assist the Donkey Party in rebranding?

No. Wrong.

LOL.

Oh there is a flood of jobs being created, only Corporate America is doing outside the U.S., building plants and hiring millions with the tax saving given too them here in America, times are good for the traitorous bastards. Patriotism is not spoken on Wall Street.

OK, just so I understand what you are saying:

US company does business in US - profits are taxed by US

US company does business (and send jobs to) other country - profits are taxed by US, at US rate, plus taxed by other country.

Sounds to me like Obama is trying to encourage business to do business in the US only, not in foreign countries. Maybe keep the jobs here too, and maybe, if they ship the jobs overseas, they pay double tax.

thetotas, you bring up the same tired talking points about Corporate taxes that most uninformed hear, the tax rate is irrelevant, the tax rate actually paid after the Corporate accountants take advantage of the breaks and loopholes placed in the tax code is minimal or in many cases 0, Corporate lobbyists wrote Corporate tax laws for Corporations, I suspect you are already aware of that, if the average American actually knew how little Corporate America paid in taxes they would be pissed, so save the Corporate tears for the boys back at the heritage foundation that bull $hit won't fly here.

thetotas,

So I take it then that you are ok with US companies transferring profits from their american division to a foreign entity using transfer pricing and avoid paying US income tax on their US business?

Robert,

Most people commenting on these boards are passionate about politics. Trust me I've been reading it for years but just started commenting. Some people are insightful but most just try to p!ss each other off. I'd like to think most of America is not this hateful. You just get a heavy dose of it on these boards.

Ed

Robert, I'd much rather be in a position where the two sides will work together. President Obama has already worked with Republicans more than the far left would prefer. Some of the things that happened during the lame duck session of Congress are being criticized on the far right, and in that camp there's substantial support for a government shutdown like we had in '94 and '95. None of that is good.

The problem with the debt commission recommendations are the same as all the other ideas that are conceived by the enlightened well to do in D.C., they want the masses to suffer disproportionately more than the wealthy few, it is easy to determine who represents the wealthy in D.C., who the hell represents the average American in D.C.? No one.

ed john and w bush

Thanks for the feedback

you all make good points

w bush you are correct that the sacrifice has to include the well to do paying more into the pot (I think real tax reform could bring this about) and everyone will have to deal with some hard changes in some of the entitlement programs. That is shared sacrifice and the only thing that will be fair

Kris,

Oh now he's catching on. You mean after two years he is beginning to learn his job??? I didn't know this was some kind of trainee position. We don't need an inexperienced trainee as president. What we need is someone with real world economic experience.

and the people said AMEN!

very nice post.

Elbonian, I'd recommend "Conservatives Without Conscience" by John Dean. I suspect you'd find much common ground with the author. He certainly makes a great case for how the Conservatism of his hero Goldwater was both different and superior to what passes as Conservatism today. As a self-professed Liberal I wasn't in agreement with Dean on everything but there was more in common than today's political food fight would lead you to believe.

These Obama worshippers were the same knuckle-draggers saying that there was no chance the House would go the Republicans in the 2010 elections. How wrong they were about that. Instead of learning their lessons, now they're off blathering about the chances of Obama winning in 2012. Sure, why wouldn't Obama win? Everyone loves 10% unemployment, trillion dollar deficits, ObamaCare, having to extend unemployment benefits over and over because Obama has an incompetent economic team, and trillion dollar stimulus packages that do nothing but pay off the unions.

Oh, but DADT was repealed.

What a record of "achievement" Obama has to run on in 2012!

Name someone who said there was "no chance" the House would go to Republicans, JS1. Just one.

Joe Biden seemed convinced John.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/28/biden-to-democrats-stop-whining/

Howard Dean though the same John.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/23/howard-dean-obama-advisor_n_690975.html

I could go on, by why should I embarrass you?

Because you are one mean, old, snatch?

It's their job to say that, just as it was Karl Rove's job to say Republicans were going to prevail in 06 and 08. Your statement was directed at people here on FR. Keep lying, once in a while someone does believe you.

John, John, John, you're just like many others Libs here, you ask a question, get slammed on the answer, and now you want to change the subject. Here, I'll quote you so you'll no longer will be confused:

John B, Des Moines, IA: Name someone who said there was "no chance" the House would go to Republicans, JS1. Just one

You asked for one, I gave you two John. Unless Biden and Dean aren't "someones". And now you're upset and calling me a liar. Poor John, you're ending the year badly my friend.

As the libs comment to one another on this site, GOOD POST JOANNESMITH1! When a lib can't respond intelligently, they always seem to change the subject.

Next, they will critize you for "cuting and pasting" as do fiesty and Beverly. But you must laugh at the two of them, for they drink too much Kool-Aid.

siasd.

I have but one word for this reelection

NO