@bob -- excellent facts and a good history lesson. But the standard response will be " but Bush didn't get him." All this from a man who posted last week that it was time to move on from this issue. What a hypocrite!!!!

bob and Ben:

When you reflect back on the way the Bush Administration conducted itself and dealt with dissent, when you remember all the "with us or against us" language that was applied to friend and foe (Freedom fries?), when your remember all the glib talk ("bring it on", and "dead or alive", and "mission accomplished"). . .

When you think of everyone who questioned any strategy being accused of wanting to "cut and run", you will see the supreme irony of these same folks now (you), becoming so extremely sensitive, bordering on petty, in regards to the hunting and killing of Osama Bin Laden.

No one denies the fact that the hunt for this murderer began under the Bush Administration. No one denies that much progress toward the goal was made under the Bush Administration. No one doubts the intent of the Bush Administration to snuff out this monster.

But after YEARS of pretending that the ONLY way to conduct the war on terrorism was to alienate allies, torture suspects, and pretend like the Constitution was a list of suggested practices, it is really quite the sight to see the lengths to which many will go to be sure that they are CREDITED in this success.

You folks get plenty of credit, but the crass way that you all conducted yourselves for the decade leading up to us finally catching Osama Bin Laden has left a really bad taste in a lot of people's mouths. And your inability to take credit for your failures and your successes makes you seem somewhat unworthy of the "credit" you so desperately crave.

But please, take all the credit you need. Any amount would be worth the resulting silence so that the rest of us can get on with our post-Osama Bin Laden lives.

The Teapublicans have been busy ‘beavers’:

Florida Cuts Unemployment Benefits To Pay For Corporate Tax Cut

Florida Republicans this weekend also
succeeded in reducing their state’s unemployment benefits, sending a bill
to Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) for his signature:

A bill that would establish some of the deepest and most
far-reaching cuts in unemployment benefits in the nation is heading for the
desk of Gov. Rick Scott…The legislation would cut maximum state
benefits to 23 weeks from 26 when the jobless rate is 10.5 percent or higher.
If lower, the maximum would decline on a sliding scale until bottoming at 12
weeks if the jobless rate was 5 percent or less.

As the National Employment Law Project pointed out, with this bill, Florida
will “go further than any other state in dismantling
its unemployment insurance system.” The Republican sponsor of the bill,
state Sen. Nancy Detert (R), relied on the same false assumption as the
lawmakers in Utah, saying that cutting benefits “encourages people to get
back into the job market.” Research by the San Francisco Federal Reserve
has found that workers who qualify for unemployment benefits stay unemployed just
1.6 weeks longer than those who do not qualify for such benefits.

Even before this legislation, Florida’s benefits were amongst
the stingiest in the nation. Once it becomes law, Floridians will not
receive the national standard of 26 weeks of unemployment benefits unless the
state’s unemployment rate, currently at 11.1 percent, tops
12 percent. As the Miami Herald pointed out, the bill also makes it “easier
for companies to keep
former workers from collecting benefits.”

Adding insult to injury, the money saved from cutting unemployment benefits
will be used to reduce
business taxes in a state where the corporate tax rate is already
exceedingly low. Scott had been looking to cut corporate taxes even
further, but was rebuffed by the legislature

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/08/florida-benefits-corporate/

How's this for a heaping helping of HYPOCRISY?

Americans
are paying the smallest share of their income for taxes since 1958, a reflection of tax
cuts and a weak economy, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

The
total tax burden — for all federal, state and local taxes — dropped to 23.6% of
income in the first quarter, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

Followed by:

Sen.
Orrin Hatch (R-UT), the ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, has
been making the argument in a different way, pushing a recent
report that 51 percent of Americans don’t pay any income taxes. To
Hatch and his Republican colleagues, the report is perfect evidence that the
rich already pay too much in taxes. The answer to that problem, as Hatch
explained on MSNBC’s Daily Rundown today, is to revamp the tax code in order to
make middle- and lower-class Americans pay their fair share:

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/05/orrin-hatch-tax-poor-people/

That's right break the backs of the middle & lower class!

America better wake the hell up & start to connect the dots – before it’s too
late!!!

People still in denial, Resources were indeed redeployed from Afghan to Iraq by the Bush Administration and it had a big role in the ultimate failure of capturing OBL, in addition to failing to capture him at Tora Bora early in the war. Last night I posted a very small part of an article of FT #3.23. http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=afghanwar_tmln&afghanwar_tmln_us_invasion__occupation=afghanwar_tmln_us_redirection_of_forces_to_iraq

Below is the few “Excerpts” taken from the above report I posted on yesterday’s FT #3.23.

Most of Task Force 5’s members are called home from Afghanistan to prepare for operations in Iraq. In early 2002, there were roughly 150 Task Force 5 commandos in Afghanistan. After the massive transfer, Task Force 5’s numbers dip to as low as 30 men.Task Force 5 is a top-secret elite group that includes CIA paramilitary units and military “special mission units,” or SMUs. One of the SMUs is the former Delta Force. The name of the other unit, which specializes in human and technical intelligence operations, is not known. The Washington Post will later note, “These elite forces, along with the battlefield intelligence technology of Predator and Global Hawk drone aircraft, were the scarcest tools of the hunt for jihadists along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.” According to Flynt Leverett, a career CIA analyst assigned to the State Deparmtent, “There is a direct consequence for us having taken these guys out prematurely. There were people on the staff level raising questions about what that meant for getting al-Qaeda, for creating an Afghan security and intelligence service [to help combat jihadists]. Those questions didn’t get above staff level, because clearly there had been a strategic decision taken.” [Washington Post, 10/22/2004] In 2003, Task Force 5 will be disbanded and then merged into the new Task Force 121, which is to operate in both Iraq and Afghanistan. [New York Times, 11/7/2003]

The Atlantic Monthly will later report, “By the beginning of 2002, US and Northern Alliance forces had beaten the Taliban but lost bin Laden. At that point the United States faced a consequential choice: to bear down even harder in Afghanistan, or to shift the emphasis in the global war on terror somewhere else.… Implicitly at the beginning of 2002, and as a matter of formal policy by the end, it placed all other considerations second to regime change in Iraq.” [Atlantic Monthly, 10/2004] In February, 2002, Gen. Tommy Franks allegedly tells Sen. Bob Graham (D), “Senator, we have stopped fighting the war on terror in Afghanistan. We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq” (see February 19, 2002). [Council on Foreign Relations, 3/26/2004] This shift from Afghanistan to Iraq involves a change of focus and attention (see Early 2002). Additionally, while the total number of US troops (less than 10,000) in Afghanistan does not go down, there is a considerable shift of specialized personnel and equipment many months before the war in Iraq will begin:
On February 15, 2002, President Bush directs the CIA to conduct operations in Iraq (see Early 2002). In mid-March, the CIA tells the White House that it is cutting back operations in Afghanistan (see Spring 2002).
Most of Task Force 5, a top-secret elite CIA and military special forces group, is called home from Afghanistan to prepare for operations in Iraq (see Early 2002).
In March 2002, Fifth Group Special Forces, an elite group whose members speak Arabic, Pashtun, and Dari, that is apparently different from Task Force 5, is sent from Afghanistan to Iraq (see March 2002).
The USAir Force’s only two specially-equipped spy planes that had successfully intercepted the radio transmissions and cell phone calls of al-Qaeda’s leaders are pulled from Afghanistan to conduct surveillance over Iraq. NSA satellites are “boreholed,” (or redirected) from Afghanistan to Iraq as well (see May 2002).
Almost all Predator drones are withdrawn from Afghanistan and apparently moved to the Persian Gulf region for missions over Iraq (see April 2002).
More personnel will shift to Iraq in late 2002 and early 2003 (see Late 2002-Early 2003). In 2007, retired US Gen. James L. Jones, a former NATO supreme commander, will say that Iraq caused the US to “take its eye off the ball” in Afghanistan. [New York Times, 8/12/2007

As you can plainly see there is far more to resources than just the boots on the ground. To just talk about troop levels only is misleading as to the whole picture. A million troops with no weapons, support, intelligence, armored vehicles, eyes in the sky, etc, etc means squat. It is like sending our troops into battle with guns but no ammo.

You can keep spinning and lying all you want, the fact is Bush was an failure on AFGHAN do to his total mismanagement of the war, just like he mismanaged the economy and brought us to the Brink of bankruptcy. President Obama is going down in history as the President that got OBL and the President that saved America from bankruptcy. Bush is going down in History as one of he most incompetent Presidents of modern time. You re-pugs keep living in your little dream world, we will see you in 2012 when President Obama gets re-elected.

bob,

President Bush captured and killed Osama Bin Laden.

Are you happy now? Is that enough credit?

P.S. Can't help but notice how the word "Iraq" is absent from all your 'splaining . . . no matter . . . Bush gets the credit . . . yay.

Gee , our little right wing friends sure are in a snit today. Feisty, guess you hit their buttons. Can you feel the beat of hate from them? They have lost all perspective and anything resembling reasonableness.

Perhaps instead of popcorn, perhaps we should pass around some antacid tablets.

US Navy - what is really laughable about the posts from Bob (numbers) and Ben (numbers) is that they really CANNOT refute that the Bush Administration dropped the ball on the OBL issue.

So let's take a look at what history is telling us.

The Bush Administration spent 7+ years and the BEST they were able to do is to prune the Al Qaeda bush of lieutenants and 'operatives', spending close to $1 TRILLION in our treasure, not to mention the hundreds of American service personnel that died in Afghanistan.

The net result of these operations? A 'near miss' of Osama Bin Laden in Tora Bora, which, after that, President Bush famously stated that he really didn't care where OBL was, since it was not his priority.

Fast Forward to the Obama Administration. 2 + years of intelligence gathering and in a 40 minute mission, he cut off the head of Al Qaeda and gathered more intelligence than what the Bush Administration tried to torture out of 'enemy combatants' in Gitmo.

Oh yes, I must mention that there were ZERO American Casualties, and Al Qaeda is MORTALLY wounded.

So what is the point of trying to say 'Bush get the credit'?

There is none, other than trying to make political points. The Bush Administration was content to use the low level bait that the Pakistani Government was throwing them, all the while spending obscene amounts of money on 'security' - for really nothing at all.

The Obama Administration was content with finding and eliminating the head of the organization, no matter what the Pakistani government was throwing us.

Now if the Bush Administration wants to take credit, I agree with Nashville Fan. Take all the credit you want - or need - for the incompetence and is so GLARINGLY evident when dealing with the Al Qaeda issue.

Of course the argument will go back to 'well, President Clinton dropped the ball'. Well, yes, he did. Big time. But it was the responsibility of the Bush Administration to take the can that President Clinton kicked down the road and dispose of it. The Bush Administration did NOT, but instead decided to use 'terror' for their own petty political gain. Never mind that America was hurt; it was a cynical ploy to make a political point and to use that political point to invade Iraq.

THAT is what the Bush Legacy is all about. That is why the Bob (numbers) and the Ben (numbers) and trhe Joe (numbers) are all in a tizzy. They CANNOT refute the fact that the Bush Administration was incompetent when it came to dealing with terror threats. They CANNOT refute the fact that we had 'colour coded terror levels', and for what purpose? For some low level lieutenant that Al Qaeda really didn't care about?

So yes, we can say 'Mission Accomplished' to the Bush Administration. You have accomplished to waste a DECADE of American Treasure and lives for nothing. You have managed to trash the United States' legal reputation with that monstrosity called Guantanamo Bay. You have managed to energize the Jihadist movement with your ham handed actions.

You have become the BEST recruiting tool for Al Qaeda for a DECADE, thanks to your methods and actions. You have managed to waste TRILLIONS of dollars for no real reason. You have killed 4000+ American Service Personnel for obfuscations, lies, and plain untruths.

So you want the credit? There it is.

I hope you are happy.

Nash Thank you for saying that this morning better than I ever could.........Red hang tough Ace. The truth has a way of shining through all attempts to conceal it, deny it or collapse it

Hello Nashville_fan,

Sorry for the tone of the above, but some just don't get it.

With regard to comments, they were very good. I think many on the right were uncomfortable the macho, the phrases such as "bring it on." But I think you have to remember that the Muslim world is very macho, very plain, very brutal and reservation and lack of resolve are considered a form of weakness.

To me, the extreme irony is that counter to the position he took as candidate, Obama is very much acting and doing the same as Bush.

I seriously and honestly hope this continues, that he posseses the same resolve when the issues are more difficult. I hope he has the courage to to stand up to Iran, Hamas, Syria, etc. I doubt that he will based on his past actions, but America needs a President that will back up his word, the will to to prevail when it gets tough. Obama can look at Clinton and look at Bush. The answer is obvious to those willing to open their eyes.

No one denies the fact that the hunt for this murderer began under the Bush Administration. No one denies that much progress toward the goal was made under the Bush Administration. No one doubts the intent of the Bush Administration to snuff out this monster.

Actually if you read Navy's stuff, they do exist - hence the tone and content of my replies.

But after YEARS of pretending that the ONLY way to conduct the war on terrorism was to alienate allies, torture suspects, and pretend like the Constitution was a list of suggested practices,

Alienating allies? Not really. Russia is no friend. China is no friend. France was liberal then, now conservative. Same with Germany. Italy is great for shoes, food and cars, but really....ask Hitler how much help they can be. The UK, Australia are oldest best friends. UK is more concerned about Obama than they were about Bush.

It's all a matter of perspective.

Torture, enhanced interogations, drone kills, kill squads .....What is the moral difference between OBL and KSM? The guy that had the vision and the guy that planned 9/11. Yet, the left decries KSM's treatment, but cheers two 5.56 rounds to the chest and a kill shot to blow the back of OBL'shead out. I don't get it. KSM is fine, wasn't hurt. OBL was killed and dumped in the ocean. Who is in better condition?

With regard to who is credited. I could not careless on the personal level. Not really important.

But I do feel on a philosophical level, at this time, it is incredibly important.

Modern Liberalism doesn't work. Liberals like FDR / Truman / JFK - yep. No problem.

But not Modern Liberalism.

it is really quite the sight to see the lengths to which many will go to be sure that they are CREDITED in this success.

Pietro:

Thank you for the follow up. You wrote it better that I.

The bottom line is that President Obama is going into the history books as the President that brought down OBL. Not Clinton and not Busy, they will go down as failing to capture him even though both of them also had their chances.

President Clinton will go do in History as a President that create 22 million jobs and left office with a surplus also failed to get OBL. Bush will go down in History as the father of the greatest recession since the Great Depression, turning a surplus into a record deficit and just being a failure in getting OBL.

Bush no longer deserves any credit as the record comes out he walked away from AFGHAN. You do not get credit when you abandoned the Mission. If Obama had failed he would have said I told you so.

This is what you get from a Party of loser's. BS and personal attacks of no merit. They have lost their way and they do not have any leaders at all to guide them back.

The bens, bobs, etc on this board can not stand the fact the President Obama did what they could not do. They can not stand the fact that in spite of all their "Obstructionism" and fascist ideology that our President is getting things done. Albeit slowly because he has gotten to help at all from the right, but he is still moving the country forward. The GOP/TP is tugging on his coat tails trying to pull him back. He is saying no to them and they do not like NO unless they are the ones yelling it. NO NO NO Hell NO!! Well looks like our President has had enough.

Should read he has gotten NO help at all from the right.

Thanks Nashville and Pietro for some very thoughtful posts.

Red, see the weekend did nothing for your hate. Not a surprise. You are no different that the ranting right-winger- you recite CBS/CNN left wing news and the right wing spew FOX news.

You are right about one thing, Americans need to wake up or our polorize thinking will be the end of us.

Have a great day.....

UE above 9% again, Shocker. Thanks for your laser like focus.

Thank you Defense Dept, Pres Bush and Pres Obama for getting OBL.

Pres Obama is learning that Pres Bush was correct with the war on terror. Can we say Gitmo, Iraq, Afgan, Terrorist trials and troop surges.

2012 is coming. This group of Independents working hard to repeal the great American experiment and sadly mistake. Take his Health care mess with him.

All the hate spouted in this country, comes from the left. They just can't stand anyone who disagrees with their agenda! This animosty is ruining the country at a time when we need to join together on solving the many problems we face! Can't you see this! Can't you see how your actions are not solving any problems we have? Can't you swallow your bitterness towards Bush and just finally move on!

Obama has had his 7 days, it's time for him and his followers to now move on as well and address these problems, many of them policy decisions of this administration! unemployment at 9% for much of the last 2.5 years, creeping inflation that hasn't been addressed, illegal immigrants streaming across the border and virtually ignored by the Feds, many red states suffering from tornados, flooding, drought and wildfires.... etc, etc. What is being done with these issues.... do you think ignoring them will make them go away?

Pull your heads out of the ground liberals.... I would be glad to join you crowning President Obama for getting rid of OBL if only he would start solving these the many problems this country has right now! When will you start?

HATE!! Come on Miked the right wing has done more to divide this country because there's an African American in the White House and running things admirably. What happen with the right? During the 2010 election it was all about JOBS JOBS JOBS but since they've taken over Congress, they've hardly said anything about jobs. Abortion (Take away Women's Rights), Medicare (Look out Grandma, Grandpa, especially if you're under 55), Healthcare (Kids you can't stay on your parents medical until you're 26), No collective bargaining, What's up with all this crap!! Leave the President alone he's doing the best he can with what he has to work with and the Republicans are no help. OBAMA 2012

MzGlo,

If Obama's mom is white how does that make him African American? I've asked this on here and nobody can answer it, want to give it a try?

Let's bring up a few of those things you mentioned. Hasn't there been job growth? Abortion, it is a woman's right, but I don't want to pay for it, do you? Medicare, what is there to look out for? Healthcare, if you're calling a 26 year old a kid and still lives at home, well that's the parent/adult child's problem.

Kind of sucks when you shut out a party for two years and now you want to be buds when you lose.

Kind of sucks when you shut out a party for two years and now you want to be buds when you lose.

I dunno, 3Wolves.

Lets look at the minority Leader in the Senate, who stated that his job was to make the President a 'one term President'. Is THAT an euphanism for being 'shut out'?

How about that Health Care Reform bill - the one where Republicans put in language to 'water down' the legislation and then voted 'NO'. Is that an euphanism for being 'shut out'?

Let's look at the voting record of the last Congress, where the Republicans voted 'NO' on almost every bill brought up by the House. Is THAT an euphanism for being 'shut out'?

Let's look at the RECORD filibusters that the Senate recorded in the 111th Congress, where the minority Republicans successfully filibustered 400+ bills. Is THAT an euphanism for being 'shut out'?

Care to rephrase your post, 3Wolves?

3WolvesandaMoon:

I am going to help you out with the "Why is President Obama considered African American since his mama is white?" question . . .

-In the United States of America, white people decided that if you had any African blood, you would be considered "black". The reason that African Americans . . . black people . . . come in so many different skin tones is that most of us are "mixed" with something . . . so really and truly . . . there would be no "black" people if you are trying to apply some type of "percentage" to it.

-As a practical matter, "black" is a descriptor of a darker skin tone, therefore if you appear "black", you are usually considered black.

President Obama identifies himself as African American, or "black" and lastly . . . may favorite . . .

If a person would be considered "black" if they committed a crime, then that same classification is also used when they are elected President of the United States.

Hope that helps! :o)

Thanks Nashville and Pietro for some very thoughtful posts.

Thanks, Fielden. Nashville is pretty good, isn't she?

I'm not a military person but here's what I surmise from this whole ordeal: Obama cashed in on the Bush Osama policies that were already in place; intelligence gathering began 9/12/01; waterboarding works; and it was my understanding from way back before Bush that Clinton had Osama in his gun sight after the first WTC bombing and backed down. Obama, what little he accomplishes does it merely for teleprompter and face time being the narrcissist that he is.

"To me, the extreme irony is that counter to the position he took as candidate, Obama is very much acting and doing the same as Bush."

Bob (#####) - what does "the same as Bush" mean?

I ask this, not to bait you and start some squabble, because I'm really curious what your perspective is on this statement. I sense that your ideologies and my ideologies are worlds apart - so I don't ask this with any thought of influencing or criticizing - merely to understand.

Hopefully....more discussion to follow....

I'm not a military person but here's what I surmise from this whole ordeal: Obama cashed in on the Bush Osama policies that were already in place; intelligence gathering began 9/12/01; waterboarding works; and it was my understanding from way back before Bush that Clinton had Osama in his gun sight after the first WTC bombing and backed down. Obama, what little he accomplishes does it merely for teleprompter and face time being the narrcissist that he is.

I dunno, annirich, it is kinda hard for President Obama to take advantage of the intelligence gathering on 9/12/01 when the unit to get OBL was shut down in 2005 (you can reference US NAVY's post that will show you that fact).

Seems to me that if your 'theory' was true, then we would have been able to catch OBL SOONER than 2+ years of... wait for it... intelligence gathering!!

The fact of this matter is that President Obama's directive when he got elected started the ball rolling and it took 2 years of painstaking work to FINALLY pinpoint where OBL was.

Sorry, annirich, your argument doesn't hold water.

I do like the narcissist line though. I guess it takes one to know one.

Thanks for the kind words IR, fielden and Pietro . . . see ya'll tomorrow! :o)

Just one more thing, annirich -

You state in your post that waterboarding works.

I disagree, especially in this case.

The Bush Administration built Gitmo and spent 7 years torturing prisoners for information.

The Obama Administration, on one raid, gathered more information - from the SOURCE - that you could EVER get from torturing 100 'operatives' and love level Lieutenants - in less than 40 minutes and simultaneously mortally wounded the Al-Qaeda organization.

So, let's see- 40 minutes and crippling Al-Qaeda mortally vs. 7 years and strengthening Al-Qaeda...

I dunno, Annirich, can't say that waterboarding works in this case, can we?

annirich - first let me clue you into something. Every President including Regan has used a teleprompter. I have to laugh at the idiots that think President Obama is the first. And, no, President Obama did not cash in on Bush's info, etc., to capture Osama. Bush had said - on at least 3 occassions in 2003 that Osama wasn't worth going after and that we had better things to do. When President Obama went into office he made getting Osama top priority. Your little Bush did nothing - nada - zilch. President Obama, our counterterrorism group, and our wonderful military deserve all the credit. Get over it - President Obama accomplished what Bush gave up on. Period!

Vermontgirl,

OBL and KSM are the perfect example. OBL was the big picture guy, the guy with the vision, the inspiration and money raiser. 9/11 was his vision. KSM is the one that planned it, coordinated it and made sure of its execution.

In most circles - they are equally complicit.

KSM was captured in a raid in Pakistan. The CIA was given custody and took him on a rendition flight to a "black site" in, I believe Romania or Poland. There, he was waterboarded 183 times. He confessed and in addition, according to the previous 3 CIA Directors, gave more actionable information from these "enhanced interrogations" than all the other intelligence means and methods combined had achieved. They state that they have no doubt that other attacks have been prevented.

Obama has railed against "enhanced interrogations", rendition flights, black sites, vowed to close GITMO (KSM was later housed at GITMO), etc. He has stated that terrorist such as KSM should be extended the civil rights of American citizens, including recieving Miranda Rights (such as the Christmas bomber was extended) civil court trials, etc.

Due to the absurdity of that position, KSM or any other terrorists, has yet to be tried.

Obama invaded a foreign country in a military operation that shot OBL in cold blood in the middle of the night, removed the body from the scene and dumped it in the ocean. There has never been any trial, no court orders .... nothing to match Obama's previously stated position. This was Bush's way - as a military action, not a crime.

OBL and KSM - exact same crime - to opposite ways of handling it.

Nothing could be more entertaining than watching political poker over credit and blame for the results of a military operation. Kind of silly. The order was given, the operation was a success. The Commander & Chief gets the credit. One can be sure the advisors were worried about a repeat of the Iran operation.

You just have to love how this gets framed by the media as "the best week" of the presidency.

I admit it. I hate right wing ding-a-lings and repubs.

Damn proud of it too. I hate all enemies of America.

3wolves: same ol same ol. You think if you just keep posting it again and again, some day it'll be true.

The federal government does not pay for abortions. Simple enough. Repeat after me: the federal government does not pay for abortions. What YOU and your ilk want is to make sure NO one can get a safe, legal abortion, even paying for it out of their own pocket with their own insurance. (Thus the attempts to defund Planned Parenthood--because if you can't make abortion illegal, go around the constitution and make it unobtainable.)

How do you live on this earth in this country (assuming you're an adult) and NOT somewhere have learned that others do not (any longer) get to define your race for you? The President of the United states can identify his race any way he chooses, black, white or mixed. You're worried about a 26 year old kid living at home (guess you don't understand how college works: many kids graduate with an undergraduate degree at that age whether they work or not, and live at home--If they go for a post degree that's additional--

You may not know of any seniors or plan to live long, but Medicare is essential for many millions of them. These are the kinds of arguments that have made the Tea Party so irrelevant.

AP,

Didn't say the Federal Government pays for it did I? What about the States? Yup, look it up. I'm starting to think you don't understand what you read, where did I say take away Women rights? Just tried to look up Plan Parenthood, the abortion site is closed, weird??

haha, yes Obama can do what ever he wishes, because we work for him, man thanks for clarifying that for me, I thought it was the other way around. Reason why I said what I said about race is it's because it's idiots like YOU that say, "you're a racist because our President is Black", and that's your freaking battle cry if someone doesn't agree with his policies. Here's the deal, don't use the race card if your feeling get hurt!

If it takes until your kid to turn 26 to finish school maybe he shouldn't go. Sorry dude not everyone is cut out for college. So you're saying it takes 8 years to finish college? HAHA, OK.

XX

First he assumes that increasing drilling would increase supply and thus lower oil prices, this is bull. Supply is already high. It’s also worth exposing this myth that opening up more supply in the U.S. would NOT cause any significant dip in oil prices over the short term. It takes years from the time drilling starts and the wells start producing oil. “In 2009, the U.S. produced about 7 percent of what was produced in the entire world, so increasing the oil production in the U.S. is not going to make much of a difference in world markets and world prices,” says the Energy Information Administration analyst Phyllis Martin. And, there is no guarantee that the oil drilled in the US will stay in the US at all. Most of the oil we drill now goes someplace other than here. Two other points are that the drop in the price of oil is a combination of factors. The drop, as Reuter’s notes, came largely from poor macroeconomic indicators — showing that demand is actually dropping, not that supply is increasing. The other factor was an exodus of speculators from the commodities market. There are those pesky speculators again.

I agree that opening up drilling in the US would not immediately increase the global supply of oil. As you stated, currently, we may have a surplus, but what will the situation be in 3-5 yrs. Large scale deepwater projects take yrs to develop, so some of the outlook needs to be further into the future, not simply what does the demand look like today.

Using the argument that something will not make much of a difference so it is not of importance is quite a fallacy. Using the same logic, alternative energy is only a small portion of the total energy produced, so why should we pursue it? In my opinion whether it is a fossil fuel, or alternative energy, every little bit counts.

Not saying that it does not count. Saying it does nothing in the immediate future as the GOP is trying to claim. We need every drop of energy whether it be solar, nuclear, hydro, geo-thermal, oil, gas, coal. You named it, it all has its place. I object to saying that drilling now has an IMMEDIATE Impact. It does not and it sure as hell did not bring down the cost of oil as the GOP is trying to spin. Just not accurate at all.

It is crystals clear that no one understands the commodities market- or the linkage between a weak dollar and the high price of oil.

So, for Ira, and the rest of you-

The dollar is the world's reserve currency, which means that the global prices of many items are set in dollars. Oil is one of these.

To understand the linkage between the strength of the dollar and oil prices, you need to remember how much you spent on a week's worth of groceries today, versus what you spent last year. In other words, how much purchasing power you had per dollar.

A strong dollar has the purchasing power of one hundred cents- a weak dollar less than that. So, think of it this way- last year, it cost you, say, twenty dollars to fill your tank, but today, it cost you thirty five dollars. This is but one sign of a weakened dollar.

How is this caused? Well, for one thing, it is an Obama policy. He wants a weaker dollar, because it means that the price of our exports go down. Increasing exports are one of the things he believes will help our economy. (pssst- it is not working).

Another cause was QE II. When the fed continued quantitative easing, it increased the number of dollars in the economy, devaluing the dollar as they did so.

So, the commodities market takes into account the weaker dollar, which has less purchasing power, AND the chaos in the Middle Easr, along with our own reluctance to drill in our own back yards, and bets that the price of oil will rise.

In the last week, we have seen a drop in the price of oil because of strengthening of the dollar. This happened with Bernanke's assurance that QE II would NOT be followed by QE III - that easing would, in fact, end in June of this year.

This is good news, but does little or nothing to cause a greater drop in the price of oil, because the chaos in the Middle East is ongoing, and there is still no policy for drilling here.

By the way, Bush did cause a drop in the price per barrel by announcing an increase in drilling permits. Remember, these are bets on the FUTURE supply of oil- not the supply today. By increasing drilling here, the markets assumed, correctly, that supply would increase- thus, the dramatic drop in price per barrel.

The markets are betting that Obama will stick to rainbow factories. Judging by his statements, I am pretty sure they are right.

Hey joe-3041821, the price of oil dropped when the economy tanked after 8 years of Republican leadership, the meltdown of the housing market, and the socializing of Wall Street with bailouts.

how about no tax cut on all income level, how about raising taxes on ALL income levels, how about a flat tax with NO loopholes. I get so sick of this talk of taxing only the rich (I am not rich) when we have so many NOT PAYING ANY TAXES! American greed= want to live here and have the govt "entitle" them so much at the expense of the American worker, and play STUPID about why we have a national debt (I agree two wars and now a third is adding to the debt). Keep up the trash, hate talk lefty and rightly and you will keep getting NOTHING done.

And we say we are the greatest country on earth (great at being hateful????).

All you, have a great day.

tjohn: it has been a DEM controlled Congress since 2007 up until we kicked your butts out of the House last Nov. And now we're going to kick ALL Progressive/Socialist Leftie Liberal Democrats OUT in 2012. And as usual Feisty and Retired Vet (suuure you are; you're both paid by MSNBC) the FL unemployment story isn't exactly as you portray:

The Senate plan, approved on a party-line 29-10 vote, keeps the maximum benefit at 26 weeks. But it creates a sliding scale that would cut or add a week of unemployment benefits for every half-percent the unemployment rate dropped or climbed.

Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/05/03/2199530/florida-senate-approves-business.html#ixzz1Lss7vftw

Maybe the women could try keeping their legs crossed until we get over our economic problems.

As long as 60% of the rich pay no taxes or very, very little taxes at all, this government will always find ways to tax the middle class more. All the loopholes given to the rich should be disolved immediately. Then maybe they will be forced to pay their share of the tax burden.

Great week for Team Obama…what about the rest of us?
Another 43,000 people applied for jobless benefits.
Another 21,000 illegals crossed into the US from Mexico.
Another 1600 people died in America from wrecks, murders, & disasters
Another….Oh what does it matter, the media wants you to believe it was a 'relatively' good week for the politician-in-chief so it must have been a good week for America.
What a sick, sick way of thinking.

Pat - Just heard on the news that the Heritage Foundation has proposed a new tax code with only three deductions - charitable contributions, mortgage deductions and costs directly associated to education.

How is this caused? Well, for one thing, it is an Obama policy. He wants a weaker dollar, because it means that the price of our exports go down. Increasing exports are one of the things he believes will help our economy. (pssst- it is not working).

No Joe.

Well you've got the right wing talking points memorized I'll give you that. The dollar lost 40% of its value between 2000 and 2004.

You act as if all of these problems started on Jan 21, 2011.

You act like the federal deficit was $0.00 until Jan 20, 2011.

You act like oil was plentiful until Jan 20, 2011.

You act like Obama invaded Iraq.

You act like Obama invaded Afghanistan.

You act as if all that ails the country originated with Obama and Democrats.

You act as if no republican has ever held office since 1970.

Any ideology or political party that has such a weak, damaging platform that it has to employ shills like you to sell it can't be good for America. You are trying too hard. The repubs are trying too hard.

Forget fancy links and narrative. Your talking points and contentions are easily debunked by common sense, and some objective thought.

Look at what your party has done to this country in only 30 short years. In 2012 we will scrape you, and your party off our shoe and move forward as best we can.

Greg - That post is the epitome of hypocrisy. And you act as if no Democrat has held office since 1970. The price of gold was $300 per troy ounce in 1999. In the eight years that Bush was in office he increased it through deficit spending to A$600 per ounce where it was when Obama took office. Now it is $1500 and ounce and going up. I was here when Jimmy Carter lost control of oil prices for us and that has a lot to do with where we are today. I-95 from Maine to Miami look like a parking lot the year of the embargo. Jerks like you screwed us on that deal. Now you all are trying to do it again with more of your me, me, me attitude. So Obama gets elected in 2012. How is he going to function with a Republican Congress?

Rick,

Look up the price of Au again. It wasn't $600 / oz. It was over $900,....and rapidly rising. The price of gold is determined by investor uncertainty and has been rising the world over. Obama didn't cause it. Investors seeking stability did. I bought gold for $503 / oz and sold it at $1,268.

I was around for Carter's embargo too. Political unrest n the Middle East caused a true gas shortage.

Oil speculation is causing our higher prices now. If the price of oil were high due to scarcity then its price would go high,......and stay there. Your right wingers are lying to you and have you under their control.

I know you are not trying to be intentionally funny.

The latest poll numbers in Maine show Tea Party Governor Paul LePage, who has been governor for four months, with a 39% approval rating.

In contrast, Democratic governor Baldacci had an approval rating at 72% at the same point in his first term. Baldacci's approval ratings went downhill as the economy tanked, but he never lost the respect of Mainers, as much as they liked to grumble while he was in office. (the most unpopular thing he ever did was to oppose legalizing casinos.)

LePage has disappointed voters with his confrontational style, which is a big part of his drop in approval rating (which wasn't high to begin with, the man was elected with 38% of the vote.) But it's the environmentalists, the teachers, the Democrats and knowlegeable people who will be driving the 2012 elections to get Democrats into the house to oppose LePage's policies. The governor's personality may rankle the Independents, but its his policies that have fired up the Democratic base.

Hey, Amy, it sounds like the epidemic has spread here to Pennsylvania as well:

"Gov. Tom Corbett's job approval ratings have eroded sharply among voters who appear to be suffering from the political version of buyers' remorse.

A new Quinnipiac University poll found that 39 percent of the state's voters say they approve of the way the Republican is handling his job, edging the 37 percent who say they disapprove. But that disapproval number was more than triple the 11 percent who said they had a negative view of Mr. Corbett in the last Quinnipiac survey in February."

The Quinnipiac results were consistent with those of a Public Policy Polling survey conducted earlier this month that found a slight plurality of disapproval for the Corbett polices. That survey also found that Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato, who was soundly defeated by Mr. Corbett in last year's race for governor, was actually running ahead of the incumbent in a hypothetical rematch."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11118/1142520-454-0.stm

Oh, but unlike your guy in Maine, this is the so-called "moderate" Republican who actually defeated the Tea Party-endorsed candidate in the primaries. So I guess we should be counting our blessings?

Wow, Joanne, that's interesting. It sounds like Pennsylvanians are rejecting the Republican agenda, when it moves from rhetoric to real policies that affect them, and not just reacting to the governor's "style."

I was thinking the other day how scary it would be if a Tea Party politician was elected who had a smooth personality and was able to roll back environmental laws, reduce teachers' benefits, and lower the minimum wage for teenagers, without upsetting the public. (Oh wait, we had one, that was Ronald Reagan, I believe.)

JoAnne---the people of Pennsylvania who have the buyer's remorse over Gov. Corbett have only themselves to blame for believing him when he said he would balance our budget by eliminating wasteful spending. There was no way that was going to do it and they should have seen that. And to refuse to tax the natural gas operations here is ridiculous.

Steeler Fan -

What's especially ridiculous about his refusal to tax the natural gas drillers is his reasoning - that if we tax them, they'll somehow pack up their drills and go elsewhere. I think he's eventually going to have to cave on this one, though - besides public pressure, his own party is starting to bail on this. The Republican Senate Majority Leader, whose from my own county, for one:

"They would also need such key Senate figures as Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R., Delaware) - who, as of Friday, sounded more open than ever to a severance tax.

"The industry has clearly said this wouldn't in any way interfere with their capital investment or job creation in the state," he told The Inquirer.

Another Republican singing a similar tune is Tom Ridge. The former governor - whose lobbying firm has been paid $900,000 in fees from the shale coalition - pointed out that the industry had operated profitably in states with severance taxes."

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20110328_Corbett_maintains_hard_line_on_no_Marcellus_Shale_tax.html?page=3&c=y

So basically, even Tom Ridge, who's making a bundle off of these guys, thinks we should be taxing them, and the industry itself is open to discussion. Can anyone else say "no-brainer"?

JoAnne-The amount of money being generated by the natural gas drilling is staggering and if the companies make a little less, they will still come here to make it. Maybe they could cover the cost by stopping their ridiculous TV commercials---save that money.

Shocking! A Governor has to put into place unpopular policy changes because of prior mismanagement, and his popularity goes down before the results can be seen...

Color me surprised.

Well your states elected the conservatives correct? And as you say, typical Unions who want we private sector to carry your pensions for you "drive the elections"; well hopefully the Unions meanwhile will be busted as they should be so you might not be as confident come election time. Vote ALL Progressive/Leftie Libs OUT 2012

Have you met "Republican Jesus"?

www.addictinginfo.org/2011/01/10/republican-jesus/

Well, John B, that didn't take long, did it? Sigh...

No surprise there, and no surprise that the DOZENS of religious leaders whose views are reflected above are immediately mocked and discounted by the vile joe(numb).

dozens of 'religious leaders' you mean commie lib socialist stooges like wallace....who twist the bible to meet their political agenda.

can't post those verses in the bible to back up your lies can ya now? LOL

All I know is that Jesus was a democrat, he rode a donkey not an elephant. I read in the bible some things about unemployment, food stamps and healthcare, you know help the sick and poor. I have never seen anything about tax breaks for the wealthy in the bible. The tea party would knock Jesus right out of a republican primary race.

Yeah, How dare you twist the bible........ only the Teapublicans are allowed to do that, it's in the bible you know.

Me, too - and I'm voting for him again!!

Excellent analysis JoAnne, especially the part about none of us knowing what is actually going on in the White House . . . so much of our current political discussions pretend as if only things that are broadcast to the media are actually happening . . . the truth is most of the real news every week is never broadcast . . . and considering the level of our public discourse, that is probably a good thing.

I would too if I don't own a car and collect over 100 weeks of free money-duh it's a no brainer.

"Me, too - and I'm voting for him again!!"

JoAnne: Excellent post! And I too voted for our President and will do so again. So will the majority of voters. President Obama will be elected for a second term.

Americans have been held hostage to gasoline prices sinces the 1970's. If people don't know by now they should car pool, buy cars with good gas mileage, and use public transportation, then they deserve to suffer. Every Democratic President in modern times has pushed for conservation, investment in alternative enenergy and public transportation and every Republican President has sent troops to the Mid East to protect the source of our oil addiction. If you aren't voting for President Obama because of high gas prices, you are pi**ing in the wind.

Great post, JoAnne. I have never regretted my vote for the President and will proudly vote for his re-election in 2012.

I would think we could all agree that things like meetings to bring down OBL need to be kept a secret. And I don't understand why people begrudge the President a game of golf or social event.

My hands raised. And I will vote for President Obama in 2012 also. It's obvious what the GOP/TP are trying to do to our country.

3Wolves and a moon, I own two cars and haven't collected so much as a dime in unemployment. Isn't it time to go upstairs and re-fill the Cheetos bowl?

Here is the opening statement by Harry Truman on VE Day:

This is a solemn but glorious hour. General Eisenhower informs me that the forces of Germany have surrendered to the United Nations. The flags of freedom fly all over Europe.

Here is Truman on VJ Day:

The thoughts and hopes of all Americans-- indeed, of the civilized world-- are centered tonight on the battleship Missouri. There, on that small piece of American soil anchored in Tokyo harbor, the Japanese have just officially laid down their arms. They have signed terms of unconditional surrender.

Here is Obama on the Seals killing bin Laden:

When I gave the order, they were ready.

You see any difference in these statements?

Go on and read all of Truman's statements about the ends of the wars in Europe and the Pacific. You will see his use of Americans, we, our, us- references to the brave, the fallen, and the heartbroken at home.

The only time he references himself is to note that VE Day happened to fall on his birthday.

Obama gave the order- good for him. It was our intelligence network who located bin Laden, and our Seals who killed him. Not Obama. He gave and order, then posed for a photo op that was purely staged- Panetta says the feed went black for 25 minutes, and Hillary Clinton stated, over the weekend, that the shot of her with her hand mover her mouth was NOT her gasping in fear, but covering a cough caused by seasonal allergies.

Obama wants credit? He's got it.

His exploitation of this- as was made clear by Messina's email blast, with a link to the fundraising page, is purely cynical, and will backfire.

Why?

It's the economy, stupid.

Here is Obama on the Seals killing bin Laden:

When I gave the order, they were ready.

You see any difference in these statements?

Funny...I went to the transcript of the President's statement last Sunday night and found your "quote" nowhere...he didn't say that.

No Joe, so all of the people in that photo, the one you claim was "staged", all of those people sat there silently while Obama ran the show?

Those people were there, and they have the jobs they have, by the decision of the President. Obama may not have actually done the work in Pakistan but it was he who assembled the team, made the decisions, deliberated, made sure the effort was coordinated and, yes, gave the order.

DA Noid...Neocons are a desperate bunch these days. As time passes, their lack of accountability for 8 of the most miserable Bush years is beginning to focus total blame on them. The difference between neocons and the rest of the country is that they want to take their country and us along with it back to pre-Civil War days when labor was free and abuses of the poor made that way by the rich was rampant.

Neocons can't be trusted to tell the truth. Most are closet racists and won't admit that. They can't find a single thing this president does to be remotely satisfactory. That's just a reflection of their own self-loathing. This country would have been in dire straights if McCain had won and they know it.

If I were a Democrat, I'd be pretty fed up being the clean up crew for Republican sewerage.

Da Noid -

I had actually been talking about the "60 Minutes" interview last night, but thank you - the President's original statement last Sunday makes an even better case against the "noun/verb/I/me/my" argument. As an example for those who apparently have already forgotten (or who as usual willfully chose not to listen):

"And tonight, let us think back to the sense of unity that prevailed on 9/11. I know that it has, at times, frayed. Yet today's achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people.

The cause of securing our country is not complete. But tonight, we are once again reminded that America can do whatever we set our mind to. That is the story of our history, whether it's the pursuit of prosperity for our people, or the struggle for equality for all our citizens; our commitment to stand up for our values abroad, and our sacrifices to make the world a safer place.

Let us remember that we can do these things not just because of wealth or power, but because of who we are: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

From what I've read of Harry Truman, I'll bet he'd have approved.

Amy in Portland to No Jo

"Nuts"

(another famous response from WWII :)

Noid- he made that statement when he went to Fort Campbell.

Round four or five of the victory tour.

I guess one cannot blame him for so shamelessly exploiting this- it is, after all, all he has got.

You know, JoAnn, I was going to give a pass to his whining demand that he be given the same kind of unity that Bush was given after the attacks.

What I will say now is that I was disgusted by the cynicism it took to even make that kind of a remark.

Every single time I think Obama cannot sink any lower- he does.

I repeat- " noun, verb, I killed bin Laden" will not get him re elected.

It's still the economy- and there, he is an epic, spectacular failure.

Every single time I think the NJ nut job cannot sink any lower- SHE does

I can't wait to hear her squeal when President Obama is re-elected in 2012! lol

No Joe, an interesting way to twist the facts.

Wrong, but interesting. Considering that it was Bush whining that HE had not been given enough credit.

That there's an inspiring display of patriotism from you, NoJoe.

I'll bet Harry Truman would be proud.

Auntie,

My hooch doesn't have an upstairs, but I do have a bunker next to it, will that work?

Yeah, that'll work. Now, about those Cheetos..........

global warming?? LOL BWAHAAHHAHAH

how about the trick to hide the decline? hmmmm???

joe-3041821

how about the trick to hide the decline? hmmmm???

Scientists don't use the word "trick" the same way republicans do, usually preceded by the word "dirty." The word "trick" in science means a clever way of doing something. The temperature declline from one data source is what was not real. The increase in temperature since the beginning of the Industrial Age is real. But go ahead and laugh your fool head off. It won't stop the glaciers from melting and the sea levels from rising at an accelerating rate, which is what's happening right now.

oh of course it does...and they just happened to lose the raw data...convenient isn't it?

you sure about those glaciers??? don't let facts get in the way of your ideology...you libs never do...LOL

Cancun climate change summit: glaciers increasing despite climate change

Glaciers in many parts of the world are increasing, according to a new United Nations report, despite climate change.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8188605/Cancun-climate-change-summit-glaciers-increasing-despite-climate-change.html

and as far as the seas rising...

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the

No more than the section of an article from a conservative web site need be said about your Nils-Axel Mörner.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33225_Kook_Lies_About_Lies

So who is Nils-Axel Mörner, and how is he able to see these things that every other scientist in the world can’t?

Well, in addition to his activities “debunking” climate change, Mörner is also an enthusiast of dowsing and water witching.

And he has some very weird ideas about archaeology. See here, here, here, and here.

And he is associated with fringe wacko/antisemite/conspiracy theorist Lyndon LaRouche. Here’s an interview (PDF) he did with the LaRouche publication Executive Intelligence Review.

And he is an “allied expert” with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, a group that is controlled by energy industry lobbyists.

Verdict: there may be credible scientists raising valid objections to anthropogenic climate change theory, but Nils-Axel Mörner is not one of them. He’s a raving kook.

little green footballs is a wacko lib site. in other words you cannot dispute what he said, so you have to resort to ad hominen...my how liberal of you.

joe-3041821

Little green footballs is a wacko lib site. in other words you cannot dispute what he said, so you have to resort to ad hominen

You're calling someone else wacko when the nutcake you latched onto is into water witching? What he said is bunk. He lied about the sea level rise being only in computer models. There are island nations on the verge of disappearing beneath the waves. Not much climate change denial in those places.

He also misrepresented his association with INQUA:

http://www.edf.org/documents/3868_morner_exposed.pdf

July 21, 2004
Academician Yuri Osipov
President of the Russian Academy of Sciences
14 Leninskii pr
Moscow 119991, Russia
Dear Dr. Osipov:

It has come to my attention that Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner gave presentations at the seminar on climate change organized by the Russian Academy of Sciences at the request of President Vladimir Putin earlier this month. Dr. Mörner attacked the science of climate change, while claiming that he is mission on Sea Level Change of INQUA (International nion for Quaternary Research).

I am writing to inform you that Dr. Mörner has misrepresented his position with INQUA. Dr. Mörner was President of the Commission on Sea Level Change until July 2003, but the commission was terminated at that time during a reorganization of the commission structure of INQUA. Dr. Mörner currently has no formal position in INQUA, and I am distressed that he continues to represent himself in his former capacity. Further, INQUA, which is an umbrella organization for hundreds of researchers knowledgeable about past climate, does not subscribe to Mörner’s position on climate change. Nearly all of these researchers agree that humans are modifying Earth’s climate, a position diametrically opposed to Dr. Mörner’s point of view.

Joe numbers: you sure about those glaciers??? don't let facts get in the way of your ideology

I'm sure.

I have seen a glacier in the Sierras that is diminishing in size. There is photographic proof and evidence from countless observers and scientific studies.

hey Houston, nice lie....again you can't deal with the data...from the times...

physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change

and he's not the only one....

But James M. Taylor, a senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute, notes the best available research shows there has been no acceleration of sea-level rise since the end of the Little Ice Age in the late nineteenth century, and global sea level has actually been declining since 2005. [See Holgate 2007 and Jevrejeva et al. 2006, complete source citations at the end of this media alert.]

http://www.heartland.org/full/24899/Global_Warming_And_Sea_Level_Another_False_Alarm.html

New data since the TAR now show that losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica have very likely contributed to sea level rise over 1993 to 2003 (see Table SPM.1). Flow speed has increased for some Greenland and Antarctic outlet glaciers, which drain ice from the interior of the ice sheets. The corresponding increased ice sheet mass loss has often followed thinning, reduction or loss of ice shelves or loss of floating glacier tongues."

In Table SPM1 they attribute 0.21 mm/yr of sea level rise over the period 1993-2003 to Antarctic ice loss.

These claims are contradicted by recent papers that show that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing.

I. Joughin and S. Tulaczyk, Positive Mass Balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctic, Science 295, 476-480 (2002) - They found strong evidence for ice sheet growth in West Antarctica.

C.H. Davis et al, Snowfall-Driven Growth in East Antarctic Ice Sheet Mitigates Recent Sea-Level Rise, Science 308, 1898-1901 (2005) - They found that the East Antarctic ice sheet is growing at 45 GT/yr, corresponding to a sea level decrease of 0.12 mm/yr.

D.J. Wingham et al, Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet, Phil Trans Roy Soc A 364, 1627-1635 (2006) - They found that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing at 27 GT/yr, corresponding to a sea level fall of 0.08 mm/yr. The study covered 72% of Antarctica and the period 1992-2003.
http://sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ar4ant

The current issue of Mother Jones has an article on the Global Warming "hockey puck" graph misrepresentations by the people who have agendas against science or political motives.

They full story explains what was used to misrepresent the scientists, out of what context, and the vindication of them in the long run which somehow didn't make it to Fox News or the other sources trying to debunk climate change. The crux of it was the only thing the scientists were guilty of is being human and in some cases being jerks, but the actual science or methods of collecting data themselves were never in question by anyone who understood the methodology. For example, one of the scientists wrote in a memo that he'd destroy his data rather than turn it over to people who would just use it to misrepresent it and said they could submit a FOIL request that he'd never respond to. That behavior (if followed through) could be considered unethical, but the rant to do so was just someone letting off steam and the people who got the leaked emails (through an illegal hack) played his statements every way they could to misrepresent it. They also describe the methods used to collect data before we kept records and the adjustments to the numbers as more data was collected (which is what scientists do). The numbers were still consistent in showing a warming trend and correcting results with updated data is in no way and never was a cover up or distorting the evidence as the anti-global warming people claimed.

Mother Jones has received numerous awards from their peers in the media 9or all political slants) for their quality of journalism and accuracy in reporting. They are truly unbiased and find fault where ever fault is due. If their facts appear to be more along the line of the liberal side and in conflict with the far right version, it's because they are dealing with facts and not distortions, and not a liberal bias unless the definition of a liberal bias is actually reporting the facts, all the facts, and nothing but the facts.

No, they don't claim to be "fair and balanced". Use some common sense. Anytime somebody goes through the effort to always preface what they tell you by swearing it's the truth, it's usually either an outright lie or misrepresented. Listen to Rush's show sometime. He very often goes into a rant about doing the research to bring you the truth and hen drops a real whopper of cherry picked and cooked up "facts" that are about as far from the truth as they can get. It's entertainment, but it's not news and the commentary is written and delivered directed to his listeners and subscribers who will never question, verify, or go to any news outlets other than Fox, Drudge, or the like to hear other than what they already believe and want to believe.

Great sources.

The Heartland Institute, a Koch brothers, Wal-Mart heir, and oil industry front group for spreading phony science. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

An extrapolation from DJ Wingham that patterns of ice accumulation in A PORTION OF Antarctica somehow apply to the entire world, conveniently ignoring loss of ice in the Arctic Ocean, Greenland, the Alps, all over the world even including Mt Kilimanjaro. http://www.livescience.com/6462-greenland-rising-rapidly-ice-melts.html 2010 actually set a new record for ice melt in Greenland. http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2011/01/21/greenland-ice-melt-sets-a-record-and-could-set-the-stage-for-sea-level-rise/

The personal views of Nils-Axel Morner, a retired scientist who continues to misrepresent himself as representing an official capacity as Houston pointed out above.

Even the classically deceptive claim that the globe is actually cooling, misrepresenting a clear anomaly in the data due to the strongest El Nino of the last hundred years as a trend. http://www.grist.org/article/global-warming-stopped-in-1998

John more lies I see...again do you EVER tell the truth?

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz1LuHNEu4B

Map of Greenland with temperature changes. Image credit: ESA. Click to enlarge.
Researchers have utilised more than a decade’s worth of data from radar altimeters on ESA’s ERS satellites to produce the most detailed picture yet of thickness changes in the Greenland Ice Sheet.

A Norwegian-led team used the ERS data to measure elevation changes in the Greenland Ice Sheet from 1992 to 2003, finding recent growth in the interior sections estimated at around six centimetres per year during the study period. The research is due to be published by Science Magazine in November, having been published in the online Science Express on 20 October.

http://www.universetoday.com/11078/greenlands-ice-sheet-is-growing/

oh and you're lying about nils-axel morner...no surprise there...you libs have to resort to ad hominen since you cannot argue the issues.

Globe cooling faster than anticipated and to continue over next 20-30 years says accuweather.com

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4TC2bQqDTw

Do you even read your own links? From your post about the Greenland ice sheet "shrinking";

Efforts to measure changes in the Greenland Ice Sheet using field observations, aircraft and satellites have improved scientific knowledge during the last decade, but there is still no consensus assessment of the ice sheet’s overall mass balance. There is however evidence of melting and thinning in the coastal marginal areas in recent years, as well as indications that large Greenland outlet glaciers can surge, possibly in response to climate variations.

Further;

The result is a mixed picture, with a net increase of 6.4 centimetres per year in the interior area above 1500 metres elevation. Below that altitude, the elevation-change rate is minus 2.0 cm per year, broadly matching reported thinning in the ice-sheet margins. The trend below 1500 metres however does not include the steeply-sloping marginal areas where current altimeter data are unusable.

Keep in mind those "steeply-sloping marginal areas where current altimeter data are unusable" are the areas where large amounts of ice are known to be disappearing. Exploring your "proof" further;

The team, led by Professor Ola M. Johannessen of NERSC, ascribe this interior growth of the Greenland Ice Sheet to increased snowfall linked to variability in regional atmospheric circulation known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). First discovered in the 1920s, the NAO acts in a similar way to the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, contributing to climate fluctuations across the North Atlantic and Europe.

In other words it's a SHORT TERM change of a few years ascribable to the El Nino/El Nina affect, not disproof of global warming. We will ALWAYS continue to have relatively warm and cool years...the FACT is that each El Nino cycle is tending to be warmer than the last. In a clear statement of how you're misusing the data;

He cautioned that the recent growth found by the radar altimetry survey does not necessarily reflect a long-term or future trend. With natural variability in the high-latitude climate cycle that includes the NAO being very large, even an 11-year long dataset remains shor

There you go Joe, using YOUR OWN SOURCES. As far as Morner is concerned, you call it a lie, clearly the truth is he's been disowned by the very organization he claims to represent. I'll just repeat what Houston aptly demonstrated;

http://www.edf.org/documents/3868_morner_exposed.pdf

July 21, 2004
Academician Yuri Osipov
President of the Russian Academy of Sciences
14 Leninskii pr
Moscow 119991, Russia
Dear Dr. Osipov:

It has come to my attention that Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner gave presentations at the seminar on climate change organized by the Russian Academy of Sciences at the request of President Vladimir Putin earlier this month. Dr. Mörner attacked the science of climate change, while claiming that he is mission on Sea Level Change of INQUA (International nion for Quaternary Research).

I am writing to inform you that Dr. Mörner has misrepresented his position with INQUA. Dr. Mörner was President of the Commission on Sea Level Change until July 2003, but the commission was terminated at that time during a reorganization of the commission structure of INQUA. Dr. Mörner currently has no formal position in INQUA, and I am distressed that he continues to represent himself in his former capacity. Further, INQUA, which is an umbrella organization for hundreds of researchers knowledgeable about past climate, does not subscribe to Mörner’s position on climate change. Nearly all of these researchers agree that humans are modifying Earth’s climate, a position diametrically opposed to Dr. Mörner’s point of view

P.S. Hope all the mother's had a nice Mother's day!

Back at ya GF!

Brilliant analysis as usual Nash!

Glad you had a good Mother's Day Feisty . . . and thanks for the kind words!

Nash -

I see you and I are on the same page today. In re-thinking last weekend, the other thing that keeps coming back to me is that all the while the plans were in motion, there was the President calmly (at least on the surface) visiting tornado sites in Alabama, going to Florida for the shuttle launch that didn't happen, giving a commencement address, and then skewering Donald Trump for having to make the "tough decisions" he does at the White House Correspondents dinner. If I were ANYONE else's security or intelligence team, I'd have thought everything was business as usual and we could grab a quick nap or two on the job. Just another "party" day at the White House, right?

I don't know the first thing about playing poker, but if there's one person I know I never want to be sitting across the table from, it's President Obama.

I had that same thought, Nash---it was quite a risky gamble but the President was not afraid to act. I'm waiting for someone on the right to ask why it took 8 months to plan the raid---was it dithering?

Hope you had a great Mother's Day and that your family is getting back on their feet.

things are pretty good...you fascists lost the supreme court race in WI...all that money and all that hatred for naught....

psst...huntsman is a lib...so is romney....

This is the problem Republicans face. They can't get nominated if they ain't batsh#t crazy and to the right of Ivan The Terrible. They can't win the general if they ARE!

did you miss 2010?

Not anymore than you missed '06 and '08. You missed the demographic trends to a more diverse and younger electorate - which '10 did NOTHING to change!

you mean like diverse and young electorate which voted down gay marriage in CA of all places?

and the huge number of republican state legislators that were voted into office in 2010?

Good job Auntie Fascist, you've got Joe stumbling all over himself trying to make a sensible rant.

Off year election. If the economy and Afghanistan pick up, the President's coattails will be longer than the train on the Duchess of Cambridge's wedding dress.

Mo LOL ignoring the last election...too funny.

auntie: if wishes were horses...LOL

If my wishes were horses, they'd drop a deuce on your shoes!!

I can see why you're frustrated..when you don't have facts, logic, history, or the truth on your side its easy to get frustrated...

I'm not the least frustrated and you're not the least factual or logical! Kool-aid'll do that to ya!

joe-3041821

Mo LOL ignoring the last election...too funny.

Joe thinks for making my point.

fascist....your monikor is SO appropriate...you've lost your power...even in MA they're stripping unions of their power and money....it bodes very ill for the future of the democrats when they can't launder taxpayer money from the unions.

your policies are failures...the only people drinking the kool-aid are people like you. 2010 happened it was a huge defeat for your cause...you lost the supreme court battle in WI...and yet you don't let facts get in the way of your ideology....LOL

MO: you don't have any point..other than to deny reality LOL

Joe-numbers, have you missed all of the town hall meetings recently where constituents were not happy that the jobs agenda, the one the 2010 election promised, has gone nowhere?

fielden: you mean those ASTROTURF plants in them? LOL

I don't remember the republicans running on jobs...I remember them running on rolling back obamacare...and the deficit.

you want jobs? roll back obamacare, all obama's regulations, like his virtual ban on drilling, and jobs will skyrocket.

Stripping unions of power bodes ill for the vast majority of working people and the economy in general. If the vast majority doesn't prosper, goods and services aren't gonna fly off shelves anytime soon!

stripping the fascist union thugs of their power is a great thing for freedom. they ruin every industry they touch...and its well past the time to stop the public union money laundering of our tax dollars to the democrat party.

So you have a problem with a Mormon, what religious rights would you be referring too? Maybe I see your point, I don't understand a man who attended a racist church for over 20 years and didn't realize it was racist. Yeah, I see your point.

Yeah, that 40 hour week is a b@tch!!

Wolves, I have no problem with Mormons. It's the Religious Right who for some reason consider them un-Christian, or, at least, second class Christians. I have a bigger problem watching Romney back-pedal on health care in Massachusetts like an all-pro cornerback dropping into pass coverage. Huntsman I have no real handle on - although, if you're sucking up to wingnuts in South Carolina, you're probably not gonna be my candidate!

Dunno if I beat Maureen Dowd to the punch with my comparison of the President's demeanor last weekend to Michael Corleone standing as Godfather for the son of the brother-in-law he was having killed. Trump sure as hell quieted down, didn't he? I expect his next rant to be like Fredo in Godfather II; the scene in the sun room, where Fredo gets angry about being looked after by Michael and keeps insisting how smart he is.

Dunno if I beat Maureen Dowd to the punch with my comparison of the President's demeanor last weekend to Michael Corleone standing as Godfather for the son of the brother-in-law he was having killed.

I guess us great minds think alike.

I totally give you credit for the Munchkin joke, Houston! Stephen Colbert should send you royalties!

I thought the President with his handing of the Birthers, Trump and Bin Laden had "settled all Family business"

Someone still has to answer for Santino!

Can you say 2010

Say what numbers.......We don't look back we look forward and the view is pretty darn good.

Obama/Biden 2012

2010... Wasn't that when all of those loudmouths were swept into power on promises that they have not kept? That 2010?

what promises haven't they kept fielden? list them

Seems like it's time, again, to comment on 2010, because the righties here as usual are handing out BS and blather.

1. There was no GOP "mandate" in the 2010 elections.

It was as much a reflection on the still-struggling economy, jobs, and general discontent with incumbents as the working - or non-working - mood in D.C. that determined the outcome.

Not only Election Day exit polls, but opinion polls fairly consistently since, all report the same basics:

1. Only 22% of voters attributed their ballot choices to any Tea Party influence or positions.
2. More than 56% said the Tea Party made NO difference whatsoever in their voting decisions.
3. Tea Party candidates elected to office still constitute a tiny minority in Congress. They don't in fact have adequate numbers to justify the way they hijacked the GOP agenda.

2. The debt and deficit were not major electoral issues in any sense in 2010.

President Obama had already appointed his special Debt Commission - in February, of 2010 - and had taken pro-active approaches to the issue. Most voters cared about jobs and the economy, by a VERY big margin.

But Tea Party agitators have made it a major part of their agenda - NOT to really deal with the matters, but to justify their own regressive and unworkable attempts to dismantle the government and entirely change the basic premises of America.

3. "Listen to the people!" Tea Party candidates cried - and then they IGNORED the people.

The GOP/TP House majority commits one of the most blatant political betrayals in national history by absolutely ignoring the wishes of the voters that sent them to office.

But people remember. And next year, the unreliable, two-faced, lying GOP members are in serious trouble.

P.S. The "ignore" button really does make life here much more bearable.

john: just delusional.

1) there was a GOP mandate thats why they WON....and you lost LOL

2) according to gallup 45% thought the budget deficit was extremly important.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/127247/voters-rate-economy-top-issue-2010.aspx

3) really now, what wishes did they ignore hmmm?? no wonder you can't list the issue they ignored.....

ps: making you look foolish is so easy and enjoyable!

Ah, joe's use of polling is as deceptive as everything else he says. He uses numbers from April, 2010 to speak to what happened in November, 2010. In ACTUAL exit polling 62% of voters said the economy was their main concern, TWICE the incidence of EVERYTHING ELSE COMBINED. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/02/first-exit-polls-economy/

So why is the GOPTP running off on their own agenda, ignoring what the voters sent them to office in order to do?

John do you ever tell the truth? oh if you could you wouldn't be a democrat..

depends who is doing the polling...

Overall, voters came down firmly against expanded government: 56 percent told exit pollsters that the government is doing too may things better left to business and individuals;38 percent say the government should do more to solve problems.

Thirty-seven percent say that spending to create jobs should be the highest priority for the Congress, which will have a GOP-controlled House and Democratic Senate. A similar number, 39 percent, say the top priority should be reducing the budget deficit. Eighteen percent cite cutting taxes as the highest priority.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/11/exit_poll_the_next_congress.html

Thirty-seven percent say that spending to create jobs should be the highest priority for the Congress, which will have a GOP-controlled House and Democratic Senate.

So when did the House pass a jobs bill? When did the House debate a jobs bill? When did the House PROPOSE a jobs bill?

Keep accusing me of lying joe, YOUR OWN WORDS AND LINKS keep proving you wrong.

I'm sure you're very thankful obama changed all of his policy positions once he became president in regards to the war on terror...and adopted all of bush's positions!!

In sum, Senator Obama opposed tribunals, renditions, Guantanamo, preventive detention, Predator-drone attacks, the Iraq War, wiretaps, and intercepts — before President Obama either continued or expanded nearly all of them, in addition to embracing targeted assassinations, new body scanning and patdowns at airports, and a third preemptive war against an oil-exporting Arab Muslim nation — this one including NATO efforts to kill the Qaddafi family. The only thing more surreal than Barack Obama’s radical transformation is the sudden approval of it by the once hysterical Left. In Animal Farm and 1984 fashion, the world we knew in 2006 has simply been airbrushed away.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/266580/first-person-presidency-victor-davis-hanson

joe-3041821

I'm sure you're very thankful obama changed all of his policy positions once he became president in regards to the war on terror...and adopted all of bush's positions!!

As usual, you're just making stuff up. Everyone already knows that before the 2008 election, Obama said that he would go after Bin Laden even if he didn't get any cooperation from Pakistan. He did exactly what he said he would do. He's not a flip-flopper like McCain (forimmigration reform before he was against it), Romney (for the individual mandate before he was against it), or Pawlenty (for cap and trade before he was against it).

didn't make anything up...remember when obama talked about 'air raiding civilians' he was against tribunals, renditions, gitmo....and of course he benefited from the enhanced interrogation program he opposed. ironic isn't it?

he's flipped and flopped so many times its dizzying.

Joe -- you should have no trouble supporting President Obama's re-election bid if you truly believe he has changed and now holds the policy positions you revere.

in foreign policy yes...domestic policy no.

joe-3041821

in foreign policy yes...domestic policy no.

Gee, you don't mean you like those Republican policies Obama adopted like the individual mandate and middle class tax cuts? You libby, you!

He certainly did not adopt all of GW's positions. Obama thought the man responsible for killing thousands of Americans was worth thinking about and capturing. Definitely not Bush's position.

forrest...really now?

President Elect Barack Obama is wrong to suggest that removing Osama bin Laden from the terrorist equation should no longer be America’s top priority.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/concoughlin/8108267/Barack_Obama_is_wrong_not_to_focus_on_Osama_bin_Laden/

you democrats flip and flip like a fish out of water LOL

Is the rule at MSNBC still two conservative guests for every one progressive?

It looks like they changed the rule to any number of conservatives and zero progressives, at least when there's more good news for Obama than the corporate media likes. It's OK to put progressives on the defensive if something bad happens, but conservatives must be given every opportunity to pump themselves up if disaster strikes and something positive happens for progressives. (And whatever you do, don't talk about how Obama's policies turned GM around after the Republicans predicted doom and gloom for the auto company because of the "big government takeover.")

You're kidding, right? NBC's News Division, and MSNBC in particular have done nothing but cheerlead for Obama, and ask him "soft-ball" questions whenever presented with the opportunity to interview him, ever since he announced his candidacy in 2007.

You must not have watched Olberman's program very often, and it is evident that you don't watch Mathew's show at present, either.

I'm not an Obama hater. I didn't vote for him. But, I do give him credit for taking Bin Laden out, and I am as of yet undecided for 2012. He COULD get my vote if the economy turns around, and if he has THE GUTS to take on the oil companies and bring down the price of gasoline before the end of this year.

However, to say that NBC has been less than fair to the Democrats, and to Obama in particular, is absolute poppycock. Obama has been teated with kid gloves by the media, particularly on the subject of the economy. If you can't see that, then it is YOU who has been blinded with bias and partisanship.

J. Merle Stanley-2759623

You should definitely watch Meet The Press. Their idea of a "liberal" panelist is David Brooks. I swear Gregory is a Republican, although of the moderate persuasion. I watch every week although it never fails to rankle. Then I read Jason Linken's bitingly satiric review of the Sunday shows on Huffington Post, which completes my political experience for the weekend. (I also attend church, I'm not all bad.)

Oh, come on Patrick. This show is so biased, it should be renamed, "Meet The Left".

J. Chris Matthews is a self described "Reagan Democrat" Olberman no longer has a show. And while MSNBC is not as overtly partisan as Fox, the overall tenor of the network without dispute leans conservative. Do a little exercise for your self, count the number of conservative versus progressive guests, I think you will be surprised.

Dave D. You must be watching a different show.

Liberals won't go on Gregory's show because their like most liberals and some conservatives, they just don't like him, he's a dolt all he has is his blond hair and a smile. I haven't watched MTP since he took over the anchor chair. And won't till they replace him.

Patrick.....I hate to break it to you.

But, Chris Mathews was a speech writer for Jimmy Carter during his time in the White House.

J. Merle Stanley-2759623

Patrick.....I hate to break it to you.

But, Chris Mathews was a speech writer for Jimmy Carter during his time in the White House.

I hate to break it to you, but Chris Matthews is not on Meet the Press. Matthews is the host of a liberal-leaning talk show, not a supposedly objective news show that presents all sides as MTP falsely purports.

David Gregory is most definitely a moderate leaning Republican. That's not too different from me other than that I am so appalled at the Republican Party that I won't call myself one or vote for them.

That aside, I find David Gregory's line of questioning always to be irritating. He shows no depth of understanding of topics. He tries to get guests to say things they don't want to or shouldn't say. He needles them for controversy. I wish he would get to the facts. Ask tough questions that reveal the facts instead of just trying to create controversy. More often than not, I find myself turning him off before the show is over. NBC really need to replace him with someone smarter.

In reference to the "Ain't too proud to beg (to get Christie into the field)" segment of First Read above and the enthusiasm of prominent Iowa Republican campaign contributors to throw Christie into the mix:

'Ain't too proud' is right. Chris Christie? Newt Gingrich? Donald Trump? Anyone with any political perception at all is acutely aware of the fact that the GOP, desperate to find a candidate with any kind of grassroots appeal for this particular election cycle, is scraping the bottom of the barrel, but this is ridiculous.

Newt Gingrich is an intelligent and capable man, but his lack of ethics and his sense of personal integrity are flaws of Shakespearean proportions. Enough said.

A few words from Wikipedia about our corpulent friend from the great state of New Jersey, the Eastern Province of Cronyism and Pork. While this is merely a recitation of accusations and criticism, one would certainly think that the preponderance of controversy swirling around Chris Christie would certainly be enough to give GOP bigwigs pause before committing. As the old saying goes, 'Where there's smoke, there's fire.'

"Christie has been accused of using his office's role in crafting deferred prosecution agreements to award lucrative federal monitoring positions in no-bid contracts to friends, supporters, and allies. Questions first arose after Christie awarded a multimillion dollar, no-bid contract to David Kelley, another former U.S. Attorney, who had investigated Christie's brother, Todd Christie, in a 2005 fraud case involving traders at the Wall Street firm of Spear, Leeds & Kellogg. Kelley had declined to prosecute Todd Christie, who had been ranked fourth in the investigation-initiating U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) complaint among twenty traders who earned the largest profits for their company at the expense of their customers. The top three were indicted, as were eleven other traders.

Christie was similarly criticized for his 2007 recommendation of the appointment of the The Ashcroft Group, a consulting firm owned by Christie's former superior, the former United States Attorney General John Ashcroft, as a monitor in a court settlement against Zimmer Holdings, an Indiana medical supplies company. The no-bid contract was worth between $28 million and $52 million. Christie defended the decision, saying that Ashcroft’s prominence and legal acumen made him a natural choice. Christie declined to intercede when Zimmer's company lawyers protested the Group’s plans to charge a rate of $1.5 million to $2.9 million per month for the monitoring. Shortly after the House Judiciary Committee began holding hearings on the matter, the Justice Department re-wrote the rules regarding the appointment of court monitors.

Christie also faced criticism over the terms of a $311 million fraud settlement with Bristol-Myers Squibb. Christie’s office deferred criminal prosecution of the pharmaceutical company in a deal that required it to dedicate $5 million for a business ethics chair at Seton Hall University School of Law, Christie's alma mater. The U.S. Justice Department subsequently set guidelines forbidding such requirements as components of out-of-court corporate crime settlements.

In June 2009, Christie was called before the House Judiciary Committee as part of its consideration of new regulations on deferred prosecution agreements. In his testimony, he defended his decisions to award no-bid, high-paying federal monitoring contracts to law firms that his critics say constitute a conflict of interest. Christie left the meeting after two and a half hours of questioning, against the requests of the Committee's chairman, stating that he had to attend to pressing business in New Jersey."

From the party that brought you Watergate and Halliburton, heeeeeeeeeeere's Christie!!!

Maybe...but remember what probably cost Bush Senior a second term was Ross Perot. Violating his tax pledge sent many of his voters to Perot. Looks to me as if Republicans are still far more likely to split their vote again, this time between liberitarians and Christian fundamentalists. The Democratic base isn't THAT happy with Obama at the moment, but are far more likely to bite their tongues, hold their noses and vote Democratic rather than stay at home or vote Republican. It's the Tea Partiers who are more likely to bolt for a Third Party candidate.

Thank you for the emphasis on "might" and "could". When you pursue solutions with competence and confidence, anything is possible. I think the President can strengthen this economy. It'll be a work in process even at the end of his second term, but he'll get it started. We've farmed out too much manufacturing and we're importing intellectual talent, rather than developing our own. This will be like changing course on a cruise ship - it'll take time.

stone6

Very astute political observations. I didn't watch it, but I understand the Republican debate contrasted the Libertarian views on drugs with the conservative view, and nothing could be more strikingly different. How do Republicans reconcile such different points of view? (By agreeing to worship money and greed, no doubt.)

stone6.....The political demographics of Perot's 18% in 1992 was a pretty even split between Democrats, and Republicans. It is likely that Clinton would have beaten him regardless of the presence of a 3rd party candidate or not. The big issues in '92' were a floundering economy, stagnant job growth, and loan/credit card interest rates well above 10% nationally. Add to that a national-per-gallon-average of $4.00 for gasoline, and you pretty much have the same thing happening now. The Bin Laden situation is a huge feather in Obama's cap. But, it isn't the final barometer by which his 1st term will be judged. Always remember;....."It's the economy, stupid!"

Auntie Fascist.....For however "competent, and confident" Obama and his policies have been thus far, he/they haven't been very effective at promoting an economic recovery. Please remember that by this time in Bill Clinton's Presidency, unemployment and long term interest rates were down; while big ticket manufacturing orders, and home sales were up. The Bin Laden situation is a huge feather in Obama's cap. But at the end of the day, it is always the economy by which the success or failure of a Presidency is measured. If gas prices don't come down soon, and significantly, Obama will definitely give an "opening" to whomever challenges him in 2012.

J. Merle, gas is predicted to drop to $3.50 by June. We need to get people working - AND getting paid decently.

Amy B. Portland, ME.....You're forgetting that Ronald Reagan was first seen as as a "liberal" by his fellow Republicans when he first ran for the Presidency in 1976. There is always a possibility that different points of view, from various factions of one political party can be brought together in an election cycle for the purpose of defeating an incumbant who has failed at one particular aspect of his job, or another.

Obama has pretty much removed the "national defense" aspect with Bin Laden's killing.

But, he is still wide open when it comes to the economy, in particular gas prices. Consumers have a funny way of forgetting whatever else you might have done for them, when they are paying (for example) $4.00 a gallon for gasoline.

Aunti Fascist.....I "heard" the same thing; that gas prices were going to drop by $0.50 per gallon before the start of summer. $3.50 would then be the national average. But, people in metropolitan areas of the country such as New York, Boston, Chicago, and L.A. along with certain other secluded/tourist areas would STILL be paying around, or more than $4.00 a gallon. A $0.50 reduction in the "national-per-gallon-average" is a good start. But, it isn't and shouldn't be the end of the line.

.....and with regard to unemployment; if you don't think gas prices have something to do with unemployment...think again. Manufacturer's who have to pay $3.50-to-$4.00-plus per gallon to transport their materials to market; whether they're at the wholesale or retail level, will do whatever they have to do in order to reduce "over head" costs . That usually means layoffs, and a reduced work force.

That's why the price of gas, in and of itself ALONE, just might be the single most important issue during the 2012 election cycle.

The price of gasoline will be coming down now. But we need to stop expecting the President of the United States to keep the price of gasoline low for us. First of all, having it rise is good for us. It is the only way we will learn to use less of it. We need to use less for our own security, for the sake of the environment, and because it is an exhaustible resource.

The price of gasoline is determined by the world market. As long as countries like China are growing fast, demand will cause the price to rise. That is the free enterprise system and it should be free of government meddling. We don't have a right to cheap oil.

As for our own oil resources, we should save them for the years to come when the world has used up the oil in the Middle East, Venezuela, Russia, Nigeria, and the North Sea. Strategically, it makes no sense to give people unreasonably cheap gasoline now if it means being at the mercy of foreign countries in the decades to come. No President should give away our future in order to get elected now.

GCV.....That is a typical tree hugging response, and a big part of the reason why I am no longer an active member of The Democratic Party.

First off, to say that high gasoline prices are "good for us" is one of the most stupid things I ever seen anyone post on this board.

Furthermore, the reasons you cited to support that statement are equally as ignorant. There are people who can't afford to get back and forth to work as a result of the spike in gasoline prices. The cost of food, clothing, and other consumable/dry goods has also spiked because TRANSPORTATION costs have also risen with the price of gas. That also causes layoffs, and extended unemployment, when manufacturing employers have to reduce their overhead because of the cost of getting their goods to the marketplace, or the jobsite.

And yes, in spite of the fact that Obama supporters like yourself want the bar to be set a little lower for him, gasoline prices, and the affect they have on the economy ARE indeed part of the President's responsibility to control.

What's more, the world market alone doesn't necessarily drive the per-gallon-price at the pump here in the U.S.

The American Oil Companies, and any foreign oil company that wants to do business, and make money here in the U.S. need to be REGULATED! It was Reagan era de-regulation that caused gasoline prices to spike over the course of the last 30 years. A WINDFALL PROFITS tax which could not be passed on to the consumer would do the trick.

But nobody has the BALLS to enact it.

In closing, please don't hand me the alternative sources argument, or the conservation argument, or any other "green" B.S. argument. If we drilled in the ANWR as proposed when the Alaskan pipeline was built 37 years ago, along with telling the rag heads that they can either lower their price, or eat sand in the absence of U.S. monetary assistance, AND if we made crude oil purchases from our neighbors to the north, Canada, we wouldn't be in this mess.

There are plenty of ways that a President could drive the per-gallon-at-the-pump-price down. But, they might include doings things big money personal donars who have large dollars invested in energy stocks, might not like.

David D,

Travelling around the country and being interviewed on TV IS a President's job. This was something George Bush never understood. An effective President leads by getting out there, not holing up with advisors, or entertaining legislators exclusively.

I remember when President Obama was criticized for travelling so much abroad. Well, that's his job too, to represent America and communicate our message to the world. I don't know what you imagine a President's tasks to be, or which President in history you consider to be ideal, but President Obama pretty much suits my ideal to a T.

David D: One question, is he ever in his office, working?

Were you even paying attention a week ago?!

Thanks, Amy, for pointing out that travelling IS the President's job.

But Al Quida loved Cheney/Bush.

really? then why did bin-laden sound like a typical democrat?

Bin Laden was a "family values" Republican.

UE above 9% again, Shocker. Thanks for your laser like focus.

Thank you Defense Dept, Pres Bush and Pres Obama for getting OBL.

Pres Obama is learning that Pres Bush was correct with the war on terror. Can we say Gitmo, Iraq, Afgan, Terrorist trials and troop surges.

2012 is coming. This group of Independents working hard to repeal the great American experiment and sadly mistake. Take his Health care mess with him.