Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

Obama/Biden - FIRED UP & READY TO GO!

I agree.

Willard is a "MYTH".

FIRE, FIRE, FIRE, FIRE, FIRE, FIRE IT UP!

FIRED UP & READY TO GO.

5 months=150 days@$4 billion new debt added per day.

That's a ridiculous $600 billion.

Huh. Any wonder why the Right Track/Wrong Track is at 60+%

And golly, how about those job numbers? 370,000 stated, but like all the previous months, that number will be revised upward.

Yeah, this is clearly what Feisty is talking about - all the clouds are clearing.

Sure they are.

@ Spanky --

I'll assume that you haven't seen this report by Rachel Maddow on how the press has done such a lousy job at pointing out all the lies being told by your side about spending and the deficit and jobs numbers and stuff.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#47544813

What's really true is that President Obama is not spending faster than other presidents and the debt is not rising faster than it has under other presidents, and of course, we know that what's really true is that President Obama has NOT lost jobs, as Mitt Romney claims.

You, of course, do the same thing by repeatedly regurgitating the same old lies and spreading the same misleading innuendo.

Don't you ever get tired of it, Spanky?

Because we do.

AM - the deficit has no sides. We all own it.

As I have said before, I don't care who the president is - Bush =Obama=Romney. None has or will tackle the real problems.

What I get tired of is the additional $4 billion each day, every day. I would hope you do too, but who knows.

It will not be this time, but by 2016 there will, by absolute economic necessity, be a Ron Paul type president.

Economic reality always wins. Just ask Greece and California.

Oh and AM - you do understand that Walker will win, right?

I assume you have resigned yourself to the reality?

I sure hope so, for your sake.

Whatever, Spanky. But thanks so much for your concern.

@Feisty, Please don't forget all those important races in our own backyards!

I'll assume that you haven't seen this report by Rachel Maddow on how the press has done such a lousy job at pointing out all the lies being told by your side about spending and the deficit and jobs numbers and stuff.

Well at least you went to an unbiased source.

Jobs numbers are 8%+ unemployment. No real drop in the newly unemployed numbers. Millions that have quit looking for work that if included in the unemployment report would push that percentage to 12%. Please explain the "lie" in those numbers.

HP just announced 27,000 jobs being cut. Yeah, things are going along just peachy.

And the press, just a bunch of right wing hacks, at least according to Rachel, who is a left wing hack, so she should know.

Whatever?

Interesting response AM.

So I don't suppose you read today's USA Today article on the true deficit? See, apparently, if our fine congress critters used the same accounting standards they impose on use [you know GAAP, Sarbanes-Oaxley, Dodd-Frank] the actual 2012 deficit would be $5 Trillion.

That's $5Trillion AM, just this year.

But from you all we get is a sigh and a 'whatever.'

Economic Reality. Always. Wins.

And you know who will lose, right AM?

Anna -

I admit that is a skillfull manipulation of reality and expect Backhouse, Bev, Feisty, etc. to be too obtuse to not fall for that Obama deceit, but really, you are an attorney and you fall for that deception?

Rate of spending .... spending faster?

Obama had the stimulus ... he had a deficit of over $1.4 trillion in 2009 - over 8 times the deficit of Bush in 2007 (over 3 times Bush's deficit in 2008 with bailouts) - the greatest deficit in history, the largest deficit as a percentage of GDP since 1945 .... and Obama now treats that as THE BASE LINE!

As if every year should have stimulus spending levels?

Insane.

Come on Anna, you're better than to fall for that crap.

JoAnna --

Explain the "lie" in those numbers.

You betcha. The "lie" in those number is that they are somehow President Obama's fault. Another way of looking at it is that he has brought unemployment down by 2 full percentage points since the fall of 2009, when it hit 10 percent at the height of the recession that began more than a year before he took office.

HP just announced 27,000 jobs being cut. Yeah, things are just peachy.

Indeed. And to think California almost elected Meg Whitman as governor.

She talks just like Scott Walker.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/hp-layoffs-hewlett-packard_n_1540596.html

"While I wouldn't say we have turned the corner, we are making real progress," Whitman told analysts during a conference call.

Are you saying, JoAnna, that this isn't true?

But it does go straight to what I always say about how business are able to make money in this economy without creating jobs.

Investors were pleased, although it wasn't clear whether their glee had more to do with the cost-cutting or the company's performance during its fiscal second quarter, which ended in April.

HP shares surged $1.97, or more than 9 percent, to $23.05 in Wednesday's extended trading.

Shareholders are always happy when they make money, regardless of how they make it. Just like Mitt Romney.

But like Meg Whitman, that doesn't qualify him as a job creator.

Spanky --

But from you all we get is a sigh and a 'whatever.'

No, that's all YOU got from me.

But even that makes you luckier than some.

For example, I'm sure JoAnna would have preferred that to what SHE got from me.

yes whatever spanky, what ever conservatives would like to do about there out of control spending and deficits? Destroy the country to save the top 1%.

marketwatch.com/story/story/print?guid=C387638C-41A3-499B-9315-5AF8940C47DD

Now you expect President Obama to fix 8 years of F---Up's in just 4 years?

Oh' please feel free to correct my spelling.

bob --

Come on Anna, you're better than to fall for that crap.

Not really. I'm a big sucker for facts, bob.

Unlike you, apparently.

Good point AM, but your super smart and have no doubt considered the other side of the coin, right?

So tell us - just what qualifies Obama as a job creator?

Refresh my recollection, has he ever even has a job in the private sector.

Off topic - but Penn Jillette nailed Obama - he is now throwing people [drug users] in jail for doing the exact thing he used to do.

Just don't seem fair.

Oh and I bet you are never happy when you make money, right? Shoot AM, it ain't like you charge your clients less than $250 per hour.

How much does Amy make in a whole day again? Why shoot, if we apply your logic you are a greedy bastard.

And we know that's not true, right AM?

Spanky, Spanky, Spanky, no matter how many times you and the Republicans complain about the big Untruth (Lie) that President Obama is the Biggest spender time and time again, you're smart and know the facts say it "Not True"

The Wallstreet Journal to my surprise even admitted in print that spending is at "Historic Lows" under President Obama.

I hate to call anyone a lie but this Big Lie just keeps making the circuit and the Media won't call their own out for not correcting the record.

Now I'm wondering why Media Pundit are not like Tim Russet who refused to let anyone get away with a lie. He stood up for the truth no matter which side of the Isle told a lie and he always corrected the lie.

Today we have a media that keeps telling us they have special access and they will get us the truth but they won't in fear that they won't get the interview again.

Mark Halprin missed a huge opportunity he asked Mit several questions and Mit simply changed the topic, with that kind of an interview we as American are in trouple, it's called the "Softball" interview. We were so dissapointed in Halprin.

Once again you repeat this lie almost every day complaining about the Big Spending that does not exist under this President. if nothing else please just take a minute and GOOGLE!

However, you know the truth but as the Republicans and Mit would rather keep telling that same lie and unfortunately some Americans believe it because they don't get the facts.

Please don't forget all those important races in our own backyards!

Phine - we are working our tails off in ridding IL of Joe "Dead Beat" Daddy Walsh!

Good riddance to bad rubbish!

Tammy Duckworth 2012 - vote for a true veteran!

I see where our usual pathological liars are stuck on their spin cycle today...

No wonder they support Willard - he's someone they can easily identify with!

Spanky --

Refresh my recollection, has he ever even has a job in the private sector.

Nope, unless you count community organizing and being an adjunct law professor at a PRIVATE law school.

Because, unlike his predecessor, the business wiz, President Obama didn't have a sugar daddy who could buy him an oil company and a baseball team to run into the ground so he could practice up for his term as president.

And, by the way, I believe that Ronald Reagan's only private sector jobs were in entertainment.

And then, of course, we have Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

Well, Ford WAS a shoe salesman, if memory serves me.

And Lyndon Johnson, of course, who did happen to create a few jobs during his term. And William Jefferson Clinton, too.

And then there's George H.W. Bush, whose private sector experience was ... um ..... and who was beaten on the slogan, "It's the economy, stupid."

And John McCain, and Bob Dole, and ....

Do I really need to go on?

Oh and I bet you are never happy when you make money, right?

Actually, unlike you apparently, sometimes I'm not, depending on what I have to do to make it.

But unsurprisingly, you miss the entire point, Spanky.

The point is that making profits for shareholders is not the same as creating jobs, and as a matter of fact, sometimes, as in the recent case of HP, those things are polar opposites.

So, I'll say it once again, just in case this time you happen to have one ear open -- having made profits for investors simply doesn't qualify Romney as a jobs creator.

And especially given the way that venture capitalists like Bain usually make money.

Not really. I'm a big sucker for facts, bob.

Yet you can't dispute my facts or challenge my assertion that the Maddow/Carney/Obama manipulation is nothing but deceit?

Unlike you, apparently.

Just another Feisty, huh?

You make little wigs for your kitties too?

BTW - About that 2% unemployment drop ... kinda funny that it took place after the mid term elections - after the shellacking Obama took.

And you give him credit?

As Fesity would say .... lol.

Then start Voting against globalization.

The only things we're exporting in bulk are money and jobs.

First president who cops and says 'Screw this, I'm a protectionist.' is getting my vote hands-down.

Otherwise? Deficits as far as the eye can see.

And don't pretend Romney has a cure for that, he's PERSONALLY exported US jobs. He'd just compound the issue further.

Bottom line? Find new politicians or deal with the morass you've found yourself in :)

Protectionism 2016!

Sandielove,

"Historic Lows" under President Obama.

good point, SandieLove, but keep in mind. Conservative have nothing else to run on but Lies. Lies that are repeated here, by conservatives that live in an alternate reality as far as I can tell.

conservative policies;

gave us a economy that benefits the 1%.

gave us banks that are to big to fail. (repealed glass steagall).

Endless wars. and so on and so on.

SandieLove - didn't answer questions and kept changing the subject. Does that remind you of someone - shades of Palin? Isn't it sad the GOP keeps running these simpletons?

Feisty - absolutely! Duckworth will be such a breath of fresh air after Walsh!

NoLimitSoldier50 --

You're right about one thing -- Ed Schultz is not the only one with facts.

The Wall Street Journal has a few of its own --

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/commentary/31802270_1_spending-federal-budget-drunken-sailor

Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

You might also peek into this article, which contains lots of charts and graphs and stuff that you might be able to understand.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201205240001

So you got one thing right today, even though you're mostly wrong about everything else.

By the way, your vicious ad hominem attacks on those who try to tell the truth are most unbecoming, but so typical for your side.

AM:You betcha. The "lie" in those number is that they are somehow President Obama's fault.

Please explain what, if anything, Obama is responsible for. Please include his "Stimulus" program from 2008, his VPs statement of "Summer of Recovery" and his economic teams forecast of unemployment being less than 6% at his point of time in your answer.

Another way of looking at it is that he has brought unemployment down by 2 full percentage points since the fall of 2009, when it hit 10 percent at the height of the recession that began more than a year before he took office.

Have you noticed the debt during that time period? It's gone up a tad, no? So do you think the price paid was worth it?

Now you expect President Obama to fix 8 years of F---Up's in just 4 years?

Funny. The common chant of the Obama cult members.

Obama hasn't fixed much of anything, or do you not consider the cost of borrowed money in your esteemed "analysis". Oh, but you have that covered too with the new cult chat of 'Obama hasn't overspent'. You just can't make these things up! Wait a minute, yes you can - at least in the Obama Cult.

bob --

BTW - About that 2% unemployment drop ... kinda funny that it took place after the mid term elections - after the shellacking Obama took.

Yet another lie, bobby. The decline in unemployment began in the fall of 2009 -- a full year BEFORE the 2010 elections. It fell from 10.0 percent in October, 2009, to 9.1 percent in January, 2011, before the Republicans ever got their jackboots on the ground.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

The Republican candidates just neglected to tell you that.

You are such a lovable dupe, bobby.

JoAnna --

Please include his "Stimulus" program from 2008,

I believe that TARP was President Bush's responsibility, as was the fiscal 2009 budget.

Have you noticed the debt during that time period? It's gone up a tad, no? So do you think the price paid was worth it?

No faster than it has under other Presidents.

It was certainly worth it to those who found jobs because of it. Maybe not to the selfish, though.

.... his economic teams forecast of unemployment being less than 6% at his point of time in your answer.

Too easy. That's because your friends the capitalists, as explained in my post above, and illustrated so well by your own example of HP, are sitting on mountains of cash while they follow the new economic model, which involves making money off of money AND making money by UNCREATING jobs, as Meg Whitman just did for HP shareholders.

Really, JoAnna, you're slipping.

Good gosh Annie - sources from Maddow and Schultz and Media Matters?

No one is taking you seriously anymore hon. I mean, how can anyone? No loss though, it's not like anyone did with you anyway.

Got your excuses ready for that Scott Walker thing yet? It's never too early. We are expecting a bullet point list with associated graphs and complaints and accompanying whining about how unfair everything is, at least to you. Maybe you can throw in a link to a Media Matters article?

Yet another lie, bobby. The decline in unemployment began in the fall of 2009 -- a full year BEFORE the 2010 elections. It fell from 10.0 percent in October, 2009, to 9.1 percent in January, 2011, before the Republicans ever got their jackboots on the ground.

Of course the lie Annie won't tell you about is the one of the millions of ex-workers that have stopped looking for work and are not countered in the unemployment number. Counting those unfortunate souls would boost the unemployment to well north of 10%. But that complexity doesn't fit the agenda of the 'wonderful' job Obama has done with his trillions of dollars of new debt.

(backhouse) Anna,

Still repeating the deceit after being corrected .... still going with the mediamatters spoon fed crap .... the 2009 stimulus intervention as your baseline budget?

Yea the rate of spending has not increased.

Here is the simple picture for those not going to such lengths to fool themselves.

Debt under presidents

Reagan (1981-1988) - $1.339 Trillion / 8 years; $167 Billion per year

Bush 1 (1989-1992) - $933 Billion / 4 years; $233 Billion per year

Clinton (1993-200) - $320 Billion / 8 years; $40 Billion per year

Bush 2 (2001-2008) - $2.006 Trillion / 8 years; $251 Billion per year

Obama (2009-2012) - $5.33 Trillion / 4 years; $1.333 Trillion per year

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

I believe that TARP was President Bush's responsibility, as was the fiscal 2009 budget.

You have a reading comprehension problem. I said the Stimulus program, the $787 billion dollar program Obama and the Democrats Congress approved, that stimulated no job creation. It's clear why you don't want to answer, it really upsets any notion of the truth you might have.

No faster than it has under other Presidents.

Golly gee Annie, see post #1.29 that disproves yet another lie of yours.

And you are really taking a beating on your sources today, and you should, you are just so pathetic.

Of course the lie Annie won't tell you about is the one of the millions of ex-workers that have stopped looking for work and are not countered in the unemployment number. Counting those unfortunate souls would boost the unemployment to well north of 10%.

Totally irrelevant and off point to bobby's point, which was that unemployment didn't begin to decline until after the 2010 elections. That's categorically false.

By the way, Walker's unemployment numbers in Wisconsin are similarly affected by those not looking for jobs anymore numbers. At least one presumes they are.

Good gosh Annie - sources from Maddow and Schultz and Media Matters?

So, sorry, JoAnna. No play.

Marketwatch IS the Wall Street Journal.

But leave it to you to attack the sources and leave the facts completely unchallenged.

You may fool dupes like bobby and that other guy up there, but you don't fool me.

p.s. As for rising debt -- We've already established through official statistics that SPENDING is not rising at an unusually rapid rate, even with the TARP and even with the stimulus. DEBT wouldn't be rising at the rate that it is if Bush hadn't screwed things up so badly, requiring all that TARP and stimulus spending, and if we would just return to the Clinton tax rates.

We could get out of this hole, and the rich would still be rich.

How can you expect debt NOT to rise when you keep expecting taxes to go down and you do nothing to generate additional revenue?

NoLimitSoldier50 --

Vicious??? LOL that is funny. If you think that is vicious; obviously you have lived a sheltered life.

Maybe so, but in my book you're still vicious. Uninformed, too.

And like JoAnna, you obviously don't know that MarketWatch is the Wall Street Journal, and that the statistics cited in both of my links are official government statistics.

Or you don't care, which is what I'm pretty sure is the case.

Because facts just get in the way of all that hatred.

One more thing Backhouse Anna -

It fell from 10.0 percent in October, 2009, to 9.1 percent in January,

And rose back to 9.8% by November 2010 where it dropped to 9.4% the month following Obama's whipping ... to 9.1% ... to 9.0% ... to 8.9%.

According to your chart - the biggest drop in the Obama administration - after the 2010 election.

Thanks for helping me make my point.

But who cares right ... Obama has skewed those BLS numbers to the point of being meaningless anyway .... Obama's own CBO reports the actual unemployment to be at 10%.

Regardless BA, Mexican illegals may not know how to read and manipulate BLS, but even they understand how bad Obama sucks - 300,000 leaving California alone to find work in Mexico where the rate is half Obama's.

2011, before the Republicans ever got their jackboots on the ground.

2011, before the Republicans ever got their jackboots on the ground.

Sorry I got interrupted and didn't finish the above beating, but the rate dropped after the election .. and yes before the repubs got their jackboots on the ground.

Wanna see another big drop ... wait till November after a Romney win and watch it drop before the community organizer beats it out of town - You ain't seen nuth'n yet.

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Read the numbers again, bobby. They went from 9.5 percent in October to 9.8 percent in November, to 9.4 percent in December, and then to 9.1 percent in January, 2011.

The trend that began as the stimulus kicked in was already downward by the time of the election. And it has gone down ever since.

Either the president had some effect on that, or he didn't.

Which is it?

The rest of your post is just an ill-tempered, ignorant, unsupported-by-any-cites rant. When confronted with the facts, the last refuge of ignorant authoritarians is claim that the facts lie.

By the way, if the real unemployment rate is so high despite all the Republican heroes who were elected in 2010, then how do you explain that?

Their mere presence was either responsible for lowering unemployment or it wasn't.

Which is it?

Wanna see another big drop ... wait till November after a Romney win and watch it drop before the community organizer beats it out of town - You ain't seen nuth'n yet.

I doubt it but I also wouldn't be surprised.

I doubt it because, as the Hewlett Packard example above shows, the Mitt Romney/Meg Whitman approach to making profits for business does not involve creating jobs.

But I also wouldn't be surprised because, if ever there was manipulation going on, it would be corporations who are manipulating the economy by sitting on $2 trillion in cash reserves, which they are not paying out to shareholders, and that they will have available for investment after the election.

Of course, the main point being that they have those reserves available right now, but are withholding for no other legitimate reason than that they want to influence the election.

I can't see how you can be proud of that, bobby, when by your own admission, so many people are still suffering.

Hi Anna Molly,

Great Posts!

Great Posts!

Our Anna Molly is a one masterful surgeon when it comes to eviscerating the right wing nuts! ;o)

Funniest part is, the nitwits don't know when to quit! lol

JAS1,

[HP just announced 27,000 jobs being cut. Yeah, things are going along just peachy.]

While HP cutting 27,000 jobs does not come at a good time give the world economy but there are 3 things to remember.

First it was because of poor management decisions and second it is spread over 2 ½ years between now and Oct 2014 and lastly it is a worldwide reduction not 27K jobs in the US alone.

Backhouse Anna -

Sheesh ... now you arguing not whether Obama's unemployment is pathetic, but when it became pretty pathetic compared to awfully pathetic?

How about this .... the Obama administration projected that unemployment would not go above 8% if the stimulus was spent. We have spent $5 trillion and even the authors of the report, Obama's own economists - state that unemployment will NOT get below 8% by the end of Obama's 4th year.

Certainly we can agree on that degree of pathetic?

As you guys say everyday, companies do not care about anything other than making a profit. They are not sitting on $2 trillion because they care about dems vs. repubs, they are sitting on $2 trillion because we have a clueless community organizer as president, a guy that can't even put one budget together that makes enough sense to get one dem vote.

They will get it going when it is safe to invest ... when they have an opportunity to make a profit .... when this idiot is gone.

Same we have been telling you guys for years.

First it was because of poor management decisions and second it is spread over 2 ½ years between now and Oct 2014 and lastly it is a worldwide reduction not 27K jobs in the US alone.

Yeah, maybe they need someone like Bain to bail them out and reorganize the company.

You may fool dupes like bobby and that other guy up there, but you don't fool me.

It's hard to fool a fool like you Annie, you don't even he know the difference between TARP and the Stimulus bill.

if Bush hadn't screwed things up so badly, requiring all that TARP and stimulus spending, and if we would just return to the Clinton tax rates.

More excuses. So your answer to the question of what is Obama responsible for is: nothing.

Joannasmith1,

It really takes a fool to not know who was president when the stimulus package was signed or to make it the entire responsibility of one senator (Barack Obama):

The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 The stimulus package was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives on January 29, 2008, and in a slightly different version by the U.S. Senate on February 7, 2008. The Senate version was then approved in the House the same day. It was signed into law on February 13, 2008 by President Bush.

If you want to hold his feet to the fire, in equal measure, then what is Bush responsible for?

Spanky-

Could it be they are cutting their losses?

Ummm Spanky , that loss will be the crossed eyed Badger lying, college- drop out, Scott Walked. He will be FIRED!

I'm sending him a little juju.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeE853B0zao&feature=endscreen&NR=1

I'm sure Walker will enjoy your 'juju.'

Now, what do you got for Barrett? He really, really needs help.

Come on now libbies - do any of you actually thing Barrett has a shot at this?

Really?

Come on, you all know better.

The serial adulterer will be on Chris Matthews show this afternoon.

More etch-a-sketch as he will try to walk back the truths he told about Willard in that ad and of course his 'right wing social engineering' comment about the Ryan Plan.

Newt wants to be influencial....all the way to Tampa!

That's nice. And I sure hope our man Matthews has Booker or any of the many, many dems that are hating on Obama's attach on capitalism on someday.

Somehow I just don't see Tingles doing that.

But man did Tingles do a fine job on Jeopardy. Super smart, that guy.

The serial adulterer will be on Chris Matthews show this afternoon.

Bill Clinton?

Bill is spending his retirement time to his liking:

http://www.tmz.com/2012/05/23/bill-clinton-porn-stars/

chilled

Is Bill Clinton on Chris Matthews' show?

JAS - you do know Clinton is no longer President, right? And, even with his background, he is better liked among Republicans than Bush? And, his foundation is doing great things and helping people who desperately need it? But, of course, you wouldn't care about those things. You have to dig pretty deep to be as disgusting as you are! Yet you manage to be disgusting every day!

I don't know whether Walker will lose his recall election or not, but all I can say is, in the Republican gubenatorial primary of 2010, Paul LePage polled dead last, but he won, thanks to an energetic Tea Party base.

The question is, who is more energized in Wisconsin, organized labor that wants Walker OUT, or voters who are reached by phone while watching Wheel Of Fortune and say they'd vote to keep Walker, if they bother to vote. Hmmm. We'll just have to wait and see.

It's still 2 weeks out. A big play from either side could seal it up.

Don't count anyone out until the ballots are counted.

Yes, Clinton is quite the entertainer. He gave the cigar industry a big boost when he demonsrated that you don't have to just smoke them to enjoy them. Of course, that coating of Monica juice on the end certainly made the taste more ....interesting. LOLOL

Thanks for the link, Ursula. The past is prologue.

So Ursula - care to apply that to the little dust up in Wisc.?

How accurate would you say the polls are that are only two weeks out?

Pretty darned accurate, correct?

Unfortunately, yes, and it seems like Governors Walker, Christie, and Scott will beat down middle-class folks a little more in their respective states. Not sure why you're cheering for that.

Seems Ursula and Amy are clinging to any hope they can find when it comes to Obama. This is NOT 2008 gals. Obama was an unknown and McCain never had a chance from the beginning... everyone knew it. I sincerely think McCain didn't want to be President or he would have run his campaign entirely different. He had so many opportunities that he just blew.

I wouldn't count on the polling data to be Obama favorable in about 3-4 months...

Funny way to put that Ursula. Correct me if I am wrong, but Walker, Christie and Scott are not part of the 1%, right?

In fact none even meet the threshold 'rich' level.

Interestingly - Christie beat Corzine who was fabulously rich. And Scott will pummel Fauxahontas Warren, who is also an multi-millionaire.

I just love the way you frame your arguments.

Oh and Ursula - I ain't never got a job from someone in the middle-class, and at no time in my life have I ever wanted to be in the middle class. Good thing I live in this country where anybody can become rich.

BB,If you have been lviving in my world lately, I would not be ao assured of an Ovbama loss. Lots of people don't give a rat's patootie right about now regarding Romney/Obama. They are more interested in local issues. Just a little food for thought.

Uh...walker, christie and scott are all part of the 1%.

1% is around 350,000/year or more. Shucks, you might be part of the 1%, Spanky. Lawyers can do well.

And 14 days out, polling is accurate. But 5pts is not a 'huge' lead by any means. It's not enough to throw in the towel. Turnout will matter, and other variables between now and election day.

Obama himself will be in IA soon, I'm willing to bet that he'll swing by Wisconsin and make a speach or two against Walker/for Barrett.

Bush did it for his (R) base, and I'd be disappointed if Obama doesn't do it for his (D) base.

Spanky says -- 'Funny way to put that Ursula. Correct me if I am wrong, but Walker, Christie and Scott are not part of the 1%, right?'

Yesh, U R right -only partly, but these folks (Walker, Christie and Scott) will expect to get there (into 1%) after they succeed in their policies to destroy the Middle Class, making their rich bosses (such as the Koch brothers) even richer - and these even richer robber barons will split their new fortunes with Walker and folks.

Stop it Brianb. Don't spoil our fun. Let the libbies run.

November is going to be bad. In fact by Sept. they will all know it's all over.

"Conventional wisdom" is hardly quantifiable, but you run with that if it makes you feel good.

It doesn't matter if I feel good Ursula. I will feel wonderful watching the liberals all carry long faces while cussing up a storm when Obama goes tumbling down the rabbit hole back to Chicago. I have started collecting a series of bravado from some of the posters here about how they just know Obama is going to win. When he loses, I will repost some of the more memorable ones... after all, we conservatives gotta have our fun.

Not true. In looking at facts and figures, the national debt increase is normal spending that has been in place even before Obama took office. So he is responsible for no increase.

The right wing is selling the big lie. Truth be told, tax cuts we couldn’t afford and two unfunded wars were a main cause.

And if you are silly enough to believe Romney or Ryan on their budget plan, in which more tax cuts and spending cuts are the answer, then you really are fools.

How can you believe anything Romney says? How do you know what his agenda would be? No one can say with certainty what this guy might do.

I have started collecting a series of bravado from some of the posters here about how they just know Obama is going to win. When he loses, I will repost some of the more memorable ones... after all, we conservatives gotta have our fun.

We will be sure to save some of yours.

Naa job one, the lie was that if we passed the stimulus unemployment would stay under 8%.

Oh and I wonder Job1 - do you happen to recall what Obama said unemployment would be right now under the stimulus?

But make no mistake - Obama will sign off on a more of the same tax rates.

You can take it to the bank.

I'm not playing defense. Romney is who Romney is, period. Like him or not. Obama has proven who he is. A Marxist driven ideologue that imposes his agenda regardless of what the Constitution says. I can't help it liberals don't want to look at it. You'd rather keep the blinders over your eyes in order to feign ignorance. This way when something bad happens, you can all chime in unison - "We didn't know!!"

Job1 - Please do. And you make sure you post them when Obama loses... I predict, by a landslide.

he really doesn't stand much of a chance among real voters... so I guess he'll have to fabricate a few in order to keep to the democrat tradition of stealing elections.

Yikes Brianb####...who are the 'real voters' of which you reference?

.....and stealing elections? Try thinking before you post..... get to know the Republican Party Brianb, the masters of stealing!

How come a sitting president with such an impressive record of achievement hasn't closed the deal on his re-election?

Spanks: Oh and I wonder Job1 - do you happen to recall what Obama said unemployment would be right now under the stimulus?

Under 6%. The same number Romney got booed and hissed at by the Libbies for being oh so unreasonable when he said he would get it to that point.

How come a sitting president with such an impressive record of achievement hasn't closed the deal on his re-election?

FOX. Right-wing media empire. Koch Brothers, (hey, they convinced the country there is a "debate" about the role of burning fossil fuels in global warming.)

Bush stole an election.

Then he was re-elected with an approval rating below 50%.

No proof Democrats steal elections, but plenty of proof within the last 6 months that Republicans have certain issues in ballot-counting.

And the only way you get to even pretend Romney has a chance is by ignoring obvious patterns. If a state voted for Dukkakis in 1988...the are not going to vote for Romney. Consider it a rule of thumb to go by.

Wisconsin? Oregon? Iowa?

Those are toss-ups in your dreams and because the RNC doesn't want to confront you with the stone cold truth. 'We can't win the whitehouse this year, might lose the house, but please show up and vote so we can try to get the senate'

So Job1 - what does your cool crystal ball say will be the day Greece leaves the Euro? How about Italy's default?

You are funny.

Oh, and just what does your current research say the DOW will be at on 8/30/12?

Remember I listed the following:

(Note: The totals will change from new data input polls)

Job1 - you're probably right on most but, being from NC I can tell you that one is going to go for Obama - no matter how it looks right now. The fact is, when it comes to actually going out and voting for a Mormon, the conservative right will not be able to pull the lever. They'll stay home and just not vote!

Disagree, slightly.

Florida votes incumbents, even if they hate the incumbent. Push it Obama.

Iowa voted for Dukkakis in 88. This place will only for (R) if he's incumbent. Push it Obama.

North Carolina has undergone extensive urbanization recently. They don't know it yet, but they're going True Blue a la California/New York/ Mass. Push it Obama.

Romney will carry AZ and MO out of that list. That's it.

I'd be more worried about Texas right now. It'll vote (R) this year, for sure...but it's still undergoing big urbanization and they're down to single-digits in favor of the Republican party. Not double digits, as per history.

Seeking sanity

You are 100% wrong. We will vote for a Mormon any day over the one running against him. Keep your fantasies to yourself.

Hi SeekingSanity,

I sure hope that the President carries NC. It's a great state, and I've heard that the President likes visiting there.

rukidding47 - NOPE - NC will get back to their senses and vote Obama!

Job1 - it's truly a gorgeous state. Unfortunately right now they have some idiots in the legislature ruining the state. It will come back around when some intelligent people get voted in.