Polls and opponents make no difference.

Obama is running against [or away from] himself, his policies, and HIS economy.

No more words, pretty sayings. or triangulation. Obama's got to do something, accomplish something, get some CHANGE in the economy or he has no HOPE of re-election.

Too bad for him he shot his wad. Stimulus failed. QE2 is robbing us of 1/3 of the value of our savings.

Fact of the matter is there is nothing he can do.

DOOMED.

But sure - lets chat about Romney, Palin, or whoever. Silly diversions is all it is.

Right on Feisty:

Real poll numbers are called votes. And in 18 months a lot of things will happen. Hope you are keeping cool in that Chicago temperature.

Hope you are keeping cool in that Chicago temperature.

Thanks Ron! I'm trying...

It's positively sweltering here today!

Roselle,

Thank you for your accurate assessment of the current polling process and the lack of potential outcome that they provide. I agree with you 100%. It is also nice to see a post by you that does not claim some form of racism!

Keep up the good work.

Spanky-

DOOMED.

But sure - lets chat about Romney, Palin, or whoever. Silly diversions is all it is.

Wouldn't twitter anatomical pics be more interesting for you?

Speaking of high gas prices, does anyone here want to comment on the stories currently circulating that the Koch brothers are high up on the list of those who are actually responsible for high gas prices, through speculation in the oil markets, while at the same time trying to blame those high prices on the President?

Multiple sources for the skeptical neo-cons.

http://westorlandonews.com/2011/06/06/koch-brothers-in-forefront-of-oil-speculation/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz92EXJ8CW0

http://www.afterld.com/showthread.php?33918-Lawmakers-Oil-price-surges-not-due-to-supply-but-investor-speculation

Even Matt Drudge appears to believe this.

http://www.drudge.com/news/143326/koch-hoards-oil-profits-speculation

What, those greedy businessmen are trying to make more profit. How shockingly normal.

Better question - what has Obama done recently to bring costs down? More supply, more leases, opening up the outer bank in Alaska? See business is supposed to increase the bottom line, but the President is supposed to help the poor slovenly masses that can no longer afford to fill up.

Oh, wait he's the one who said that energy prices will "necessarily sky-rocket." Why that doesn't sound very helpful to the slovenly masses, now does it.

So looks like, if you are correct AM, the Koches are just doing Obama bidding. Huh. I just hope Bev.'s head doesn't explode. If the Koches are EEEVVVIIILL and they are doing what the president wants, does that not make Obama equally EEEVVVIIILL. Bev.?

What a funny world we live in. But it's ok AM, you and I know that with the current double dip we are in, demand will go down bringing prices along with it. The Kochs will just have to rape and pillage somewhere else.

Ah yes, the Koch brothers. After busily destroying the Wisconsin unions, the Koch brothers have now turned their attention to the destruction of the American economy by, ( and all by themselves), raising the cost of gasoline by nearly 100%. What an accomplishment for a set of characters like the Koch's in that they can manipulate the entire oil market, a market that makes their net-worth look puny in comparison. Never mind that this country, the good'ol USofA, has suspended much of it's drilling and exploration, never mind the unrest in the middle-east, never mind the constant attack on the oil companies by our politicians, they all mean nothing. It's those Koch brothers, billionaires, manipulating a multi trillion dollar market.

My, the powers they possess. I wonder if they wear capes? They have do, all villains do.

Man JAS1 - it really is insightful how much power the libbies assign to conservatives.

I can't figure out - is it because they are that weak and ineffectual, or just that scared of the world?

Got to be a sad world to live in for them - apparently no matter what they cannot control their own destiny. It's all about what the republicans can do.

This truely is my primary take away from this board. I never would have guessed that this is their reality in a million years. Very powerful stuff.

Spanky:

The Kochs will just have to rape and pillage somewhere else.

How funny you are. No need to go elsewhere. Gas prices will never go so low that the Koch boys won't make a profit, especially when they've succeeded in choking off competition from the alternative energies industry. So you see, they make out just fine either way.

And I highly doubt that the President making a general statement that energy prices will necessarily go up trumps the Koch brothers direct participation in oil price speculation, not to mention their other activities designed to keep the country dependent on fossil fuels.

I have no problem, in general, with businesses trying to make a profit. But when they do it in ways that are exceedingly hurtful to the economy in general, and do it in ways that are essentially unfair, that's where regulation plays a role. If you're blaming President Obama for not coming down harder on speculators, then you're absolutely right.

Why are Republicans so lock-stepped on the notion that the only answer to the energy supply problem is to drill more? Why not alternative energy sources, or even, heaven forbid, conservation? How do those hurt? And under what set of theories should we actually be trying, as Walker is doing in Wisconsin, to shut down alternative energy markets in favor of fossil fuels?

There is only one theory under which that approach works and you know what it is.

Anna Molly

SPOT ON. This is one piece of story that's very disturbing. Goldman Sachs is saying $27.00 per barrel is added as result of Koch brothers invented speculative activities that's about .75c on top of what we pay at the pump. GOPers know this and they're still ready to do nothing rather they want to deregulate the industry and still give tax incentives to this guys. Teapublicants are ready to sell us to PICK POCKETS.

SPANKY & JAS1 your pockets are been picked by your brethrens. holy cow.

Every Republican voted to keep tax subsidies for big oil companies, even though they are all making record profits right now. Incredibly, they want to fund those oil tax subsidies with cuts in Medicare...

So, they want the rich to get richer - and they're willing to kill grandma to do it!

It's a fact that gas prices don't make sense given the price of a barrel of oil! Oil was more expensive several years back and gas prices were LOWER. And we all know that oil companies want another GOP president...

There is definitely something ugly going on between the GOP and Big Oil and it most certainly does NOT put our country first.

What, those greedy businessmen are trying to make more profit. How shockingly normal.

It's actually pretty damn obvious but you'll always have the minions trying to excuse it away...

My, the powers they possess. I wonder if they wear capes? They have do, all villains do.

As usual, you dismiss the theory -- and mock the theorizer -- without discrediting the facts that support the theory. We're not all crazy, JoAnna. And much to your chagrin, no doubt, some of us CAN connect the dots.

As for capes, I believe only the heroes wear them. But then, I've been out of comic books for a while. I could be wrong.

Are YOU ever wrong, JoAnna? I've never heard you say so.

Spanky: Got to be a sad world to live in for them - apparently no matter what they cannot control their own destiny.

It's interesting to watch the Lefties. First, Obama couldn't get enough money in his 2009 Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Never mind that it was the biggest so-called stimulus program the world had ever seen. Apparently the GOP "watered it down" because Obama wanted more. I guess owning Congress and the Presidency wasn't enough for the Left at the time, because that compromise (the GOP lopped off a few billion) was totally unacceptable to the Left, and was responsible for it's ultimate failiure.

Now with a GOP House, one-half of Congress, the Lefties expect that House to "Produce jobs", and for some odd reason the Lefties expect the GOP House to behave just like the Democratic led one that was just thrown out. More stimulus, raise the debt ceiling, more spending, more social engineering. It's the Lefts answer to everything, even though it doesn't work.

And what ever happened to all those signs on our roads, the "This Road Being Build Because of the 2009 Recovery and Reinvestment Act"? They in a museum somewhere?

Now with a GOP House, one-half of Congress, the Lefties expect that House to "Produce jobs",

So you mean the Weeper of the House LIED to us???

Say it ain't so... lol

John Boehner, Oct 8, 2010: “Let me be crystal clear, it if isn’t clear already: this speech is about jobs. And this speech is about jobs, because this coming election is about jobs.”

“We can help small businesses get back to creating jobs.”

Hat tip to Dennis, Columbus Ohio! ;o)

AM: [Koch brothers] choking off competition from the alternative energies industry

Just where do the Koch's find the time? They must not golf.

There is no competition for any alternative energy industry. Nukes, oil, and hydro are the way the world is powered. There is not even a heavily subsidized small city fully powered by alternative energy. The proof of concept of alternative energy is years/decades away, and no, we shouldn't stop trying, but "alternative" energy is not yet a viable solution. To say that alternative energy is ready for prime time is just a pipe-dream, a fantasy.

I find it ironic that someone with the handle: Stop The Lies Now would write:

"So, they want the rich to get richer - and they're willing to kill grandma to do it!"

They want to kill grandma? Really? You truly believe that there is some group of politicians that sit around a table smoking cigars, drinking cognac saying "What can we do now, I want to kill as many Grandmas as I can!"

This statement has as much truth as "President Obama is actually not from the US, he is foreign plant." or "All Democrats want to screw white college coeds regardless of the marital status."

Do you think anyone besides a scared old lady is going to believe that an entire political party's agenda is that they want to kill old ladies? It seems that the harm being done is scaring old ladies. Please point out to me where in any plan that the GOP/TP has presented that anyone over 55 years old is going to have any benefit they currently relieve from Medicare changed. If you can do this, I will certainly reconsider my position on the GOP/TP plan as well as the tactic of trying to scare little old ladies.

Speaking of evil companies or corporations, I found this tidbit today from Moneynews.com:

Three in ten employers will abandon offering health coverage to their employees when President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act takes effect in 2014, according to a survey published by McKinsey Quarterly.

While only 7 percent of employees will be forced to switch to subsidized-exchange programs, 30 percent of companies say they will "definitely or probably" stop offering employer-sponsored coverage, according to the study published by McKinsey Quarterly.

I guess this means that the American public will again be suckered by the American Healthcare Act. Won't the employees of these companies be estatic that their healthcare will be dropped... all courtesy of the democrats. I wonder if this will change any fanatical liberal's opinion when they lose their healthcare and have to pay it for themselves.

There, carrot top in drag - are you satisfied, I provided a source for you.

Simple AM - Alternative energy sucks because:

1. it is across the board totally inefficient and expensive;

2. it is always grossly subsidized by the government;

So tell you what you get all the subsidies out and let them compete on their own and I'm good. But we know that'll never happen. Just look at Wind. the cost per Kilowatt five times what it is from good old coal fired plants.

And yeah I know - it's clean and shiny and global warming and such. But Damn it AM it's cold - we all need to warm up. Looks like the president's climate czar was right after all, you remember back in 1975- it is all about global cooling.

And look Feisty making my point - the dems cannot control anything but are at the mercy of mean old Boehner. So sad.

Now with a GOP House, one-half of Congress, the Lefties expect that House to "Produce jobs",

I think people expect to see the GOP deliver on it's propaganda. Health care, bargaining rights, censuring Obama, privatizing medicate...

So fine, not "where are the jobs" but "were is the legislation?"

It's interesting to watch the righties mind function...

And look Feisty making my point - the dems cannot control anything but are at the mercy of mean old Boehner. So sad.

Funny, this is what I think every time I hear the GOP blame "the worst fiscal disaster in 80 years" on 2 short years of congressional "control."
(SENATE: 49D / 49R / 2I).

JAS1: There is no competition for any alternative energy . . .

Should read: There is no competition from any alternative energy . . .

And yes AM, I do make mistakes, just like this one.

Hey Puis - however much the Koch's take from me or you, it pales in comparison with the government.

See that's the argument you libbies lose all day, everyday, and especially now.

BUt hey maybe Boehner and O can discuss that we they play golf.

The great thing about the American Care Act is that it will forever have the name Barack Obama attached to it. When it goes bust and fails, he will be remembered for the monumental socialistic ideologue that he is.

Since the crux of the act goes into effect in 2014, I do have to admit Obama has some cajones to want to be relected. Since he will be in the center of the ACA's financial impact on the economy, it's surprising that he is willing to be tarred and feathered. Some people are gluttons for punishment. Maybe I should change my vote to Obama... just to see how he studders and ummmm's and ahhhh's his way through this nightmare. Nahhh... he's gotta go.

STLN: So, not "where are the jobs" but "were is the legislation?"

For the 112th Congress, the House has passed numerous legislation covering the final 6 months of the FY2011 budgets, the CRs to support the Senate while they got their act together for that budget, and a FY2012 budget that includes significant reductions in spending and reforming Medicare. The House has also passed a bill repealing ObamCare, a trillion dollar drag on the economy.

What's the Senate passed? The Democratic Senate. FY2012 budget? Nope. FY2011 budget (finally, after saving Cowboy Poetry, they managed to pass it). Medicare reform? Nope. Obama's FY2012 Budget? Nope.

So where is the Senate/Democrat legislation?

JoAnna:

And what ever happened to all those signs on our roads, the "This Road Being Build Because of the 2009 Recovery and Reinvestment Act"? They in a museum somewhere?

Actually I was thinking of this just the other day, so thanks for the reminder. Some of the projects are just being finished now. One of our local suburbs, in the area where I used to live, has just finished up the most important phase in a "main street" improvement process that was funded, at least in part, with stimulus money. The next phase, affecting another couple of miles, is just getting underway now, and will take another year or so to complete.

I was thinking of this because of how beautiful the finished project looked, and how it has re-vitalized an area that was becoming very blighted, with bad roads that were not equipped to handle the volumes of traffic on the street, lots of deteriorating buildings, and closed-up storefronts. Now, access is both easy and beautiful, new buildings have sprung up, others have been fixed up, and most of the storefronts have shiny new signs on them, in keeping with the revitalization of business that this project facilitated by making the area more attractive and easier to access.

Sure, this cost taxpayers dollars. But right-wing thinkers often disconnect between that fact and what the taxpayer dollars actually do. We ALL paid for that revitalization, which already has benefited every business on that street. Instead of thanking the rest of us for contributing our tax dollars to help them, businesses just whine about "big government" and continue to call for more tax cuts, while at the same time wondering why there are potholes in the roads.

But Damn it AM it's cold - we all need to warm up.

Speak for yourself. It was 100 degrees on my car thermometer in Madison yesterday -- 105 on my daughter's car in St. Paul. This is June in the Midwest, and it just isn't right. It hasn't been right, overall, for about the past 20 years. A couple of extraordinary blizzards in the winter just confirm the theory, rather than deny it.

How will you ever get alternative energies out of their infancy unless you invest in them? When something happens to disrupt the fossil fuel supply, or it just plain runs out, that will be too late. Some things are just worth the money, Spanky. How would the southwest ever develop today if it hadn't been for those with the foresight to build the dams and the canals that bring the fresh water to you? You wouldn't get the Hoover Dam, or even the Parker Dam, built today with the Boehner Congress, and then where would you vacation?

Joanna and Spanky, you can't convince liberals that green energy is premature. It hasn't evolved yet into a viable source. You can't force it either. It has to happen naturally and through the development stages.

They are expecting green energy to perform like it's already mature and prime. Maybe I'll put my 9 year old grandaughter at the wheel of my vehicle while driving down interstate 95. Ya think she's ready? She's been driving her barbie car for months now. I know, I won't do it, but to grasp how the liberals think, you have to have absurd analogies.

Spanky-

What, those greedy businessmen are trying to make more profit. How shockingly normal.

Better question - what has Obama done recently to bring costs down? More supply, more leases, opening up the outer bank in Alaska? See business is supposed to increase the bottom line, but the President is supposed to help the poor slovenly masses that can no longer afford to fill up.

Oh, wait he's the one who said that energy prices will "necessarily sky-rocket." Why that doesn't sound very helpful to the slovenly masses, now does it.

So looks like, if you are correct AM, the Koches are just doing Obama bidding. Huh. I just hope Bev.'s head doesn't explode. If the Koches are EEEVVVIIILL and they are doing what the president wants, does that not make Obama equally EEEVVVIIILL. Bev.?

Because The Kochs are really dirty I thought you knew

June 07, 2011 09:35 PM

Americans for Prosperity Posts Fake Eviction Notices

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/americans-prosperity-posts-fake-eviction-n

Brianb:

I wonder if this will change any fanatical liberal's opinion when they lose their healthcare and have to pay it for themselves.

And I wonder whether it might finally make them see the value of unions. This happened to them at a time when only 7 percent of the workforce is unionized. And STILL companies making record profits keep claiming they can't afford to provide their employees health insurance. I wonder why that is, and how getting rid of unions made things any better for these folks?

If you don't like "Obamacare," then why aren't you advocating for doing something ELSE to control healthcare costs? Because even though it might be questionable whether Obamacare will save money, it's for darn sure that repealing Obamacare won't incent insurance companies to cut their premium costs.

Stoptheliesnow said: Funny, this is what I think every time I hear the GOP blame "the worst fiscal disaster in 80 years" on 2 short years of congressional "control."

What you said simply isn't true. We aren't blaming the financial crisis on the democrats. The question is, since they had total control, what measures did they put in place to reverse the trend? They did nothing with that time. In fact they added the insult to the injury by spending so much. Since the adults weren't there to stop them, they acted like children do without the parents in the house.

Anna Molly said: I was thinking of this because of how beautiful the finished project looked, and how it has re-vitalized an area that was becoming very blighted, with bad roads that were not equipped to handle the volumes of traffic on the street, lots of deteriorating buildings, and closed-up storefronts. Now, access is both easy and beautiful, new buildings have sprung up, others have been fixed up, and most of the storefronts have shiny new signs on them, in keeping with the revitalization of business that this project facilitated by making the area more attractive and easier to access.

Anna, have you ever played the game SimCity? In the game, when the roads deteriorate, the buildings become blighted. When you repair the streets, the buildings start looking better. I think getting neighborhoods in a better way, helps the local economy.

The only problem I have with this is, who benefits from the federal money? Local people only. Most cities have in their budgets a road repair dollar amount. The cities need to take care of this, not the federal government. I'm paying, through my taxes, repairs made for your local area. It's not a greed thing on my part, but more of a fiscal sanity thing. I believe the federal government needs to maintain and repair the interstates, not local roads.

Brainb: Maybe I'll put my 9 year old grandaughter at the wheel of my vehicle while driving down interstate 95. Ya think she's ready?

Sure, go ahead. She can't do any worse then a Kennedy.

Investing is "Green Energy" has been done for 40+ years. At some point you expect a return on the investment. Private businesses are great for producing results because they're driven by venture capitalists that expect results, but know their investments are risky. Either way, they manage they're projects with an eye on getting results.

The government just borrows and spends the money, throwing it at any politically correct and lobbyist driven adventure anyone can come up with. Results? The government doesn't care. There is just no accountability with the government.

Most cities have in their budgets a road repair dollar amount. The cities need to take care of this, not the federal government.

... I'm paying, through my taxes, repairs made for your local area. It's not a greed thing on my part, but more of a fiscal sanity thing. I believe the federal government needs to maintain and repair the interstates, not local roads.

Sure, and I'm paying for projects in YOUR area, too. The difference is that I'm not constantly whining about it. Just more disconnect, shortsightedness, and cluelessness.

In this state, local governments are limited by statute in what revenues they can raise. They never would have been able to finance this project out of what the state says they can tax. And even then, where do you suppose that kind of money would come from when taxpayers often hold the same attitude that you do that taxes can't even be discussed. Heck, we saw a guy whose house burned down in Tennessee because he refused to pay the local fire service fee. If he wouldn't pay even $75 for that, I wonder if he would have jumped up and down to be assessed to pay for street repairs, even though they were desperately needed.

As for who benefits, we all do, not just the local community. Some of the businesses on that street, for example, are national chains. Why shouldn't they pay? When I drive up that street for whatever reason that I may have for being there, I benefit, too, even though I don't live there. If the community is trying to attract business from outside, then those businesses also benefit. If you want business to move to your community, you don't show them the broken roads first and ask them to pay before they get there. They'll never agree to that. You fix the roads and then ask them to come.

What you're talking about is absolutely the opposite of what your side is trying to legislate, both nationally, and in every state where republicans took control in the 2010 elections. You're arguing out of one side of your mouth for local control and out of the other side for limiting local control, in some cases in favor of czars who have no actual stake in the communities they are brought in to manage.

Your "fiscal sanity" really amounts to nothing more than the same "me first" selfishness that we hear from your side all the time. Look around you for a moment, and identify all the things in your community that have been built with help from the federal government -- paid for in part by me -- that your community couldn't have done on your own. Roads, bridges, schools, dams, and a lot of other things. How would those things be built today if not by raising revenue? What happens the next time your community or state needs a dam or other project that is just too big for you to handle on the revenue you might raise through local taxation, if you could even get such a referendum passed anymore.

Blighted businesses and closed up storefronts don't pay taxes, Brian. Total disconnect.

JoAnna:

Private businesses are great for producing results because they're driven by venture capitalists that expect results, but know their investments are risky. Either way, they manage they're projects with an eye on getting results.

Funny you should say that because it's exactly the private sector wind energy business that Scott Walker is determined to shut down in Wisconsin. And some of these businesses are already QUITE profitable and pay competitive wages and benefits.

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/article_8f7ea0bc-1fed-11e0-8efd-001cc4c03286.html

The bill would create regulations that effectively prohibit wind energy developers from constructing a wind turbine within 1,800 feet of the nearest property line. If approved, this law would make siting a wind farm so difficult that no wind developer would even bother trying — especially when Illinois and Iowa are waiting with open arms, having no setback provision at all.

The bill would immediately jeopardize 11 proposed wind projects that are set to create hundreds of jobs and undoubtedly many others in the planning stages.

Beyond killing current projects, this law would ensure that no new wind development companies or wind turbine manufacturers would locate in Wisconsin, and would result in the loss of thousands more jobs constructing and maintaining wind turbines.

Wind energy production is one of the world's fastest growing industries. In 2010, the industry employed over 85,000 people nationally. In Wisconsin, the wind industry supports thousands of jobs at businesses like Tower Tech in Manitowoc and Renewegy in Oshkosh. Both companies produce parts for wind turbines. Tower Tech produced its first turbine in 2005 and now employs over 250 people at its plant, where it offers competitive wages and good benefits.

By effectively banning wind energy construction in the state, this law would leave manufacturing companies like Tower Tech with far less incentive to develop in Wisconsin.

Now, JoAnna, can you think of any good reason why Walker would deliberately not only close the door on successful existing businesses but create the conditions under which no new businesses of the same type are likely to locate here?

Because I can. This has nothing whatsoever to do with saving taxpayers money, which it won't because no taxpayer money is involved.

Anna Molly said: And I wonder whether it might finally make them see the value of unions. This happened to them at a time when only 7 percent of the workforce is unionized. And STILL companies making record profits keep claiming they can't afford to provide their employees health insurance. I wonder why that is, and how getting rid of unions made things any better for these folks?

It's a crapshoot Anna. First we don't know what companies will drop the insurance. Some are going to, that's for sure. I've worked in union houses before and received zero benefit from the union. All they did was take their dues out of my paycheck. They didn't advocate for higher wages, nor did they provide any benefit for being a union member. I am definitely against unions for government employees. I opted out of joining the union when I was a teacher in Louisiana. There was no upside. In my personal opinion, the need for unions has passed. We have plenty of government regulations in place that protect workers. Have you ever dealt with OSHA? I have, on many occasions. Unions were formed primarily for the protection of workers against hazards on the job. Then it dawned on them that they could strike for higher wages. As business developed through the years, wages became competitive. If you notice, there hasn't been a wildcat strike in years.

If you don't like "Obamacare," then why aren't you advocating for doing something ELSE to control healthcare costs? Because even though it might be questionable whether Obamacare will save money, it's for darn sure that repealing Obamacare won't incent insurance companies to cut their premium costs.

What's to advocate? There are very little suggestions being brought up by anyone in control. I know that the insurance industry should be able to cross state lines, and that would help lower costs because the competition would be more keen. It's hard to place regulations on costing, although we all know hospitals are very expensive places to visit... and to run. I don't think forcing everyone to have healthcare insurance will work. It places a financial burden on those that can't afford it... and just because someone's not poor means they can afford it either.

AM: The bill would create regulations that effectively prohibit wind energy developers from constructing a wind turbine within 1,800 feet of the nearest property line.

Recall the Kennedy's didn't want to be anywhere near these wind mills. Ugly, noisy things. They kill a lot of birds, and large dogs.

So 1800 feet is too much for you AM? A third of mile from one of these noisy bird killing contraptions doesn't fit your idea of a sane regulation? And with all the room to roam in Wisconsin, this is somehow unreasonable?

AM: especially when Illinois and Iowa . . . . .

I've driven/flown through/over Illinois and Iowa AM. Lots of wind farms. Hundreds of wind mills. None of them within even a mile of a dwelling.

Stick one on your roof AM. Let us know how it works out for you. Be sure to pick up the dead birds daily. Careful though, I hear they carry disease.

Anna Molly said: What you're talking about is absolutely the opposite of what your side is trying to legislate, both nationally, and in every state where republicans took control in the 2010 elections. You're arguing out of one side of your mouth for local control and out of the other side for limiting local control, in some cases in favor of czars who have no actual stake in the communities they are brought in to manage.

Anna - I'm not on anyone's side. I am a true independent. I gave up being a republican years ago. My voters registration card says NPA. I speak for myself on most accounts. I am a conservative, not to be confused with being a republican. A conservative believes that local issues need to remain local. I lean libertarian, but I still have some problems with that ideology too.

Your "fiscal sanity" really amounts to nothing more than the same "me first" selfishness that we hear from your side all the time. Look around you for a moment, and identify all the things in your community that have been built with help from the federal government -- paid for in part by me

I don't carry the "me first" mantra at all. I just believe the federal government shouldn't be spending so much money on local pet projects. I take it you've never driven down the streets of New Orleans before. If I believed that the federal government should give out money, and I had the me first attitude, then our streets would be like glass instead of like the surface of the moon.

Anna, for the record, I am NOT the enemy. You and I can disagree on topics without being snippy.

It's interesting that Romney is dodging things like Iowa, or having to explainhis own plan in response to Paul Ryan's plan. To the media, stop chasing Palin's bus helping her promote her documentary film, and do your job--hound Romney for a change. He is the front-runner and no one is making him answer hard questions.

So there's a 9% swing between the polls, and each will claim the 'margin of error' to be within 3%.

I wonder which one was poorly done? As I recall, Quinnipiac didn't have a very good record over the last 3 years.

It has to be embarrassing for both pollsters - perhaps they should stagger their releases so they can justify such wild swings as 'changed conditions'.

lol

I just checked Rasmussen, who had the best polling results in 2008 and 2010 - by far, and they show a 3% lead by a 'generic' Republican over Obama, so I suspect that Quinnipiac needs a serious reality check.

So what strategy will Obama be able to successfully use in 2012? He won't be able to campaign on his record! That would be political suicide! I think his strategy will be to attack his opponent as visciously and unrelenting as possible. Half truths and smears will be the tools!

It's early and already he's in a virtual tie with Romney and only a few points ahead of the other candidates who aren't as well known nationally as Romney, but they have time to get their message across, and given the state of the nation right now, this must have Obama's handlers in crisis mode! I can see the hand wringing and hair pulling going on as we speak!

I expect a very dirty campaign from the left! McCain refused to get down in the gutter with the democrats and it cost him the election. But this time it won't be necessary... this time those tactics won't work because the driving issue will be Obama's record, and no one wants a reapeat of that!

If Obama were smart he'd hire feisty, with the redhaired hairpiece or Bev the Chicago organizer to help sling that manure. No one else can do it as well, while avoiding the truth at the same time!

McCain refused to get down in the gutter with the democrats and it cost him the election

What cost him the election was the ignorant lipstick wearing PIG!

She has ZERO problem getting down in the gutter, matter of fact, that's where she feels most at HOME!

feisty, once again you have proved my point! Thanks....

Feisty, If it gets too hot in Chicago you can visit me at the beach in N.J.

Feisty, If it gets too hot in Chicago you can visit me at the beach in N.J.

Thanks Lisa! Actually the temp has dropped roughly 40 degress and we're having major thunderstorms! ;o(

I hear the heat is heading your way... enjoy the Jersey shore!

Cheers!

I'd love to see Obama debate Palin! I think she would be so intimidating to him that before it is finished, he'd be looking like a quivering mass of jello! I think several of the Repbulican candidates could be equally successful.

She's not my first choice for President, but she does have a lot of moxie! And such a debate would shut down the unfair attacks she's had to put up with! The liberals are indeed a cruel bunch and exemplify the dangerous side of a 'mob mentality'!

Sure they are all clowns Bev.

Funny thig is it was Obama who is not afraid of a double dip recession.

Guess the new campaign slogan comes right out of Alfred E. Newman's mouth: "What me worry?"

Priceless.

Say Bev. care to take a guess at what the next set of jobless claims will be? How about net inflation??

Say, wait a minute, when will the debt ceiling talk resume? That should be very helpful for Obama. Right Bev. - Debt, Deficit and spending reductions are totally in his wheelhouse. Oh My!

Opps, Can't wait wait until she gets backs from Africa.

Report: Sarah Palin to Visit Sudan in July

Palin will visit Juba in South Sudan on July 9. That’s the date South Sudan, which is predominantly black and Christian, will become its own country separate from North Sudan, which is predominantly Arab and Muslim

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2011/06/report-sarah-palin-to-visit-sudan-in-july.html

=====================================================

Does she know about the janjaweed (men on camels)?

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40257000/jpg/_40257515_janjaweed203ok.jpg

Hey, Sarah can't roll like that neither can her bus.

The Wild Alaskan Ding Bat is also heading to the UK...

Her 'political heroine' Margaret Thatcher has refused to meet with her!

One Thatcher ally told the outlet, "Lady Thatcher will not be seeing Sarah Palin. That would be belittling for Margaret. Sarah Palin is nuts."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/08/sarah-palin-margaret-thatcher-europe_n_873039.html

LMAO!

Who said the Brit's don't have a sense of humor!

That's too funny Feisty, I missed that one. :)

Spanky if you would be honest for a second you would admit that the President is in the hands of the Private sector. The Administration do little more, if any at all, short term fixes to the jobless in this Country.

This issue isn't about corporate taxes or any other policies that are crushing business, big or small. Money has been flooded into the system, rules have been even more tilted in the favor of business and no, business isn't running fearful from Obamacare, no matter how many times you say it is.

There is a new rule in this world when making money. You know how you are supposed to say "in bed" at the end of reading the fortune cookie to make it funny? The same concept when dealing with making money but at the end of the method you say the phrase "at the expense of" to complete it.

The way money is made and moved and redistributed in this world...we don't become a wealthy nation where 'success' rises all boats. We become only wealth individuals because wealth anymore is obtained only by totally destroying the opportunity for the lesser to the do the same. This Nation may "look" like it hasn't lost it's wealth, but the real moral tragedy within these borders is not the overall wealth numbers but the ever widening difference between the 'Haves' and the 'Never will be able to gets'.

Spanky-

Sure they are all clowns Bev.

Funny thig is it was Obama who is not afraid of a double dip recession.

Get your facts straight up Spanky

Fact Checking the Fact Checker

Although unenmployment is high, the stimulus has created jobs ...

Fact Checking the Fact Checker that the Washington Post fact checked

[snip]

Ford CEO Alan Mulally said that even though his company did not take government funds, “if GM and Chrysler would have gone into freefall bankruptcy, they would have taken the supply base down and taken the industry down plus maybe turned the U.S. recession into a depression.”

Mr. Mulally’s quote also debunks the Post’s assertion that critics of rescuing the industry had a plan other than to do nothing. In late 2008 and early 2009 there was no private capital being volunteered to save the industry. That’s why Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne recently said that anyone who claims the company could have survived without government assistance is “smoking illegal material.” Without the President’s decision to step in, GM and Chrysler would have gone into liquidation, taking the American auto industry with them. Some may continue to believe that this was a better course for our economy, but they should defend that position, not try to rewrite the historical record.

Finally, the Post downplays the fact that GM is in the process of rehiring of thousands of workers who were laid off as part of the restructuring. The President will be the first one to tell you that we will not rest until every American who is looking for a job can find one. But we will also not apologize for touting the rehiring of nearly 10,000 American manufacturing workers and the fact that soon no GM employees will be laid-off as good news.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/06/07/fact-checking-fact-checker

BTW. And I'm no defender of Sarah Palin but......

BLOCK:Sarah Palin also was saying there that Paul Revere's message to the British in his warning was: You're not going to take American arms - you know, basically a Second Amendment argument, even though the Second Amendment didn't exist then.

Prof. ALLISON: Yeah. She was making a Second Amendment case. But in fact, the British were going out to Concord to seize colonists' arms, the weapons that the Massachusetts Provincial Congress was stockpiling there.

So, yeah, she is right in that. I mean, she may be pushing it too far to say this is a Second Amendment case. Of course, neither the Second Amendment nor the Constitution was in anyone's mind at the time. But the British objective was to get the arms that were stockpiled in Concord.

BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.

Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did.

www.npr.org/2011/06/06/137011636/how-accurate-were-palins-comments-on-paul-revere

Alan, NJ

BLOCK: So you think basically, on the whole, Sarah Palin got her history right.

Prof. ALLISON: Well, yeah, she did.

Yeaaah, right in her empty head!!!

Exactly right Allan of Omaha - I had said all along there is little if anything government can do. It needs to get out of the way.

Oh and Bev. the whitehouse fact checked disagrees with the critical WAPO article? How unsurprising. But really dear, why in the world would the white house have a fact checker? Think about that for a second. Stunning, right?

You have to wonder if Professor Allison of Suffolk University in Boston, and author of a recently published book called THE BOSTON TEA PARTY, has anything at all to do with the Beacon Hill Institute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beacon_Hill_Institute

The Beacon Hill Institute (BHI) is the research arm of the Department of Economics at Suffolk University in Boston. It was founded in 1991 by businessman and Republican politician Ray Shamie. The institute, considered to be fiscally conservative,^[1][2] draws on faculty and student resources to analyze issues. They distribute research to interested citizens and to opinion leaders and policy makers through various print and electronic media, including its quarterly newsletter, BHI NewsLink; policy studies; BHI FaxSheets; policy forums; opinion editorials; radio and TV interviews; and its web site.^[3]

The institute describes itself as "grounded in the principles of limited government, fiscal responsibility and free markets",^[4] and has accepted funding in recent years from conservative foundations such as the Castle Rock Foundation (funded by the Coors family) and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.^[5]

Interesting connection for an apologist for Sarah Palin to have. Just sayin'

@AM I have no idea. The fact it was on NPR (WNYC - New York) did not suggest it was a right-wing apologist piece. Allison was introduced as the chair of the history department not an economist.

www.suffolk.edu/college/10433.html

The transcript link is posted so decide for yourself. Why do you bring up the book he wrote? Is there something in it that is incorrect or political?

Regarding the Palin/Paul Revere story, I found this article particularly interesting:

www.nationalreview.com/corner/268933/what-sarah-palin-got-wrong-and-we-did-too-joel-j-miller

Especially considering that the author of the article, Joel Miller, is also the author of "The Revolutionary Paul Revere".

Several months ago Sarah Palin spoke to a standing room only crowd in Henderson, NV. She's scheduled to return next fall to an even larger arena and that event has already been sold out! I'd love to see her debate Obama she'd spank him! By the way, haven't heard any comment from him about Weiner! Maybe he and his staff are reviewing the photos!

Most historians agree that when Paul Revere warned the colonists the British were coming he also let the loyalists know this information as well! Many of you don't realize that the loyalists were colonists loyal to England and very much against the revolutionists... our forefathers. Now of course that wasn't his intent, but he couldn't help that his method of communication helped both sides!

Question - What is the difference between a liberal and a puppy?
Answer -A puppy stops whining after it grows up.

What democratic budges did W Bush sign off on? The first 6 years were Republican Congress...thy posts need fact checking.

I stipulate to your post now answer my question

Rob, I think you have it quite backwards. The split started when Clinton won office. Bush polarized this nation even more, starting with all the crap that happened in the Florida election. I would blame the Repubs more for trying to block everything Obama does, even when it has been their ideas.

you just like the president --- no answer

Yes Robert,

The results of this poll are very important. They will determine how many unemployed people get jobs, who will have access to healthcare and the cost of living for most Americans. It is a shame that the President has been so distracted by this poll. Instead of worrying about the poll, he could have shown some leadership to the legislature to correct some of the problems we are having. Dang pollsters!

Jay T.. I think you may be onto something there, the etc part for me is Texas. Rick Perry and his GOP legislature has spent the last year just having a filed day with Texas laws. 90% of what they worked on was guns, we already have the right to carry but now we can carry openly like in a holster on your hip. They are allowing college students the right to carry on campus (yeah 18 year olds with guns, great idea). Then businesses used to have the right to not allow guns on their property, not anymore. Oh yeah, women that want or need an abortion now have to have a sonogram first. Cut $4 Billion from education and now in special session they are creating 4 new congressional districts, dividing minority districts and combining them with non minority districts. It's a free for all and yes it bothers me that he and they are passing laws they want like it is free or something...

Totally forgot about him also. I live here in NC and Bev Perdue is doing a good job keeping the Republican Legislature at bay, at least for now. 2012 will be very interesting.