I gave some money to his last campaign ($20) -- when is he coming to visit me? I seriously doubt I'll contribute this time around.

Not only does he want to tax the wealthy more; he wants them to pay for his re-election campaign too!

"Not only does he want to tax the wealthy more; he wants them to pay for his re-election campaign too!"

The wealthy can afford it.

Bush, Meg Whitman, and every one of the people running for President has had fund raisers just like this one.

These days politicos need those dollars just to run for office...at least, Obama also has contributors from a broader range of income groups than the Republicans.

Public financing of elections.

No undisclosed corporate money. No fundraising. No favors owed to contributors, just to taxpayers.

Or deal with it and quit whining.

Maybe he could convince Larry Ellsion to make a donation to ..... Ohh, nevemind.

There is a great article in the liberal Los Angeles Times stating that the Democrats are "putting together new independent political organizations for the 2012 campaign are embracing a model that will allow them to conceal their donors — the very tactic for which they criticized Republicans in 2010".

Also hedge fund managers contributed immensely to the Democratic Party. The top 10 highest paid hedge fund managers gave $33 Million to Democrats and only $600,000 to Republicans for a 55 to 1 ratio. The Democrats have always had "Fat Cat" donations". They deliberately lie to the public by claiming that they are the party of the common man. Not true. The Democrats are the Party of overpaid and underworked Employee Unions. The Trade Unions are exempt because they actually give an honest day's work for their pay.

For more on the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party please read these articles:

Web Link

and

Web Link

[Post removed; attack ideas, not other posters.]

Breitbart? very fringe.

Breitbart got his information from thehill.com. This is a nonpartisan website that "is written for and about the U.S. Congress, with a special focus on business and lobbying, political campaigns and other events on Capitol Hill. The newspaper features investigative reporting, profiles of lawmakers and aides, features describing the sociology and politics of the Hill"

thehill.com editor is Hugo Gordon, formerly of the London Daily Telgraph and the Toronto National Post. These are hardly conservative papers by any stretch of the imagination.

Web Link

article's a year and a half old

since then, all the money's gone the other way. ex: John Paulson just donated a million to Romneys pac a month ago

now that Obama's plan is to get rid of carried interest, all the hedge fundies will go home to the gop

Telly Man -

Yours is a brief but very insightful comment. There are certainly enough VC and hedge fund guys who will always support Democrats.

Carried interest is a classic case of the power of rich lobbyists. In the olden days, a VC's own money was their carried interest. When there was a liquidity event, their carried interest received capital gains treatment.

Today, a VC's carried interest is stipulated by the terms of their fund agreement. When they sell a portfolio company, it should be ordinary income. It's really not so different then an employee who simultaneously exercises their stock option and sells that stock. With apologies to my friends and colleagues on Sand Hill Road, their carried interest (not their invested cash) SHOULD be ordinary income.

When ever a Washington big wig comes to the area we have traffic problems as they close streets and restrict access. Also, the cost of protection by local police and Highway Patrol are an added burden.
Money is raised but the expenses are born by the taxpayers.

One would have thought that with a few sips of magical koolaid, my hope would bring about change. It is ironic, however, that I am filled with less hope, and see no positive change in site (and I'm highly educated and in my 20's).

If I could stop Obamas motorcade as he drives up to Woodside, I would congratulate him on being a really likable guy and a good public speaker. Come 14 months from now, he'll be in the same position as a lot of the people who voted for him: jobless.

Beware of anything that APPEARS to be too good to be true. Many times, it IS too good to be true.

"see no positive change in site (and I'm highly educated and in my 20's)"

Perhaps when you hit your thirties you can put your superior education to work for you.

And look up how to spell "sight".

You may also want to look up John McCain, to remind you why you, and an extra ten million Americans voted for Obama over McCain. As highly educated as you are, surely you recall Gramps saying in Sept 2008 that the "economy was fundamentally sound" and his peeps were telling us we were "a bunch of whiners" and it was only a "mental recession". The very week it all came crashing down.

As America was losing 700,000 jobs a month by Dec 2008.

Look up all about Gramps. Quit sipping koolaid.

Gramps would have had your twenty year old *** in boots on the ground in Libya.

Quit sipping koolaid.

Obama's approval rating is cratering. Rick Perry is now ahead of Obama in the polls. Obama's trip to Woodside reminds me of Walter Mondale's many trips to San Francisco. He and Ted Kennedy would go to Ed Moose's Washington Square Bar and Grill (also known as the Washbag) to get tanked. Mondale after spending a day in the socialist enclave of San Francisco went away revived thinking that the mood and opinion of San Francisco was representative of the nation. When the dust cleared from the great Democrat Debacle of 1984 Reagan had 525 electoral votes and Walter Mondale only had 13. Reagan carried 49 states. Mondale carried Minnesota and Washington D.C.

Woodside is like San Francisco. There you have brilliant business people who are are tsuddenly ransformed into total dunces when it comes to politics. How they can remain Democrats when Obama is doing everything in his power to transform the United States into a Socialist Nation is beyond me.

California will go to Obama and the 2012 race won't be anything like the 1984 race but I predict it will be 300 to 238 with Obama ending up on the short end -- that is if the Draft Hillary movement doesn't pull the rug out from under him at the Convention.

What "draft Hillary movement"?

Can you name any Democrats that have even whispered anything? Name three connected Democrats (not talking heads) and I'll agree there's a "talk". "Movement"? Not even.

Obama beats Perry. If it's Perry, Dems keep the Senate and the House gets a LOT closer.

It's close with Mitt, unless the tea party revolts because it's Mitt.

How do you like that sound?

"the tea party is revolting"

Telly Man up keep drinking the Obama Kool Aid. He is toast! There is nothing that can save him now. Unemployment up. Stock Market Down. Dollar devalued. Democrats lose a Congressional Seat in New York that had been held by Democrats since 1923. TellY Man Up the Obama Titanic as hit the iceberg. The ship is listing terribly to the port side and will most definitely sink.

Even the Daily Kos, a radical left wing rag is endorsing Hillary. The Huffington Post is endorsing Hillary. The New York Times and Washington Post are printing articles on the Draft Hillary Movement which is a clear indication that they don't think Obama can win.

TURN OUT THE LIGHTS THE PARTY'S OVER!

Links to Daily Kos, Huffington Post endorsements?

I hope you are correct. I hope it's Perry.

The only thing I see with a quick search is an NBC retiree with a "draft" post in July.

Wow. Quite the movement.

Go Rick! Bigger lead over Mitt in the polls this week!!

doubting thomas plays loosely with facts...your data are so wildly off that you must be a republican plant on this blog. Cite your statistics.

Next thing you know, doubting thomas is going to claim that tea party centerfold Scott Brown will win reelection in Massachusetts in a landslide.

Time for that seat to return to it's rightful spot.

dt: watch tonight's debate - tell us tomorrow if Perry can withstand Mitten Delano Romney's defense of Social Security. (thanks dt, for pointing me to dkos today!)

Go Rick go!

There is a trifecta in the making and those (portion removed) liberals will be stunned. They will say "I don't know how this could have happened everyone I know voted for Team Obama".

Then we will have the arduous task of repairing the Socialist destruction that has happened over the past 4 years. But we will get it done.

doubting

Where's the links to your claims?

"Links to Daily Kos, Huffington Post endorsements?"

Any facts, or just your portion removed drivel?

Didn't think so. Why should anyone believe a word of what you print, when you can't back up your most simple claims?

"Even the Daily Kos, a radical left wing rag is endorsing Hillary. The Huffington Post is endorsing Hillary. "

Funny.

Daily Kos link

Web Link

Huffington Post Link

Web Link

Liberals are in self denial. They can not believe that the public has rejected the Obama Socialism Experiment. An experiment that has gone drastically wrong for Obama and his adoring left. Do you actually believe that America is just going to stand by while this incompetent socialist dismantles our country? If the Democrats are smart they will draft Hillary because that is the only chance they have to retain the presidency in 2012.

dt:

Funny.

I already pointed to the Sandy Goodman, producer for NBC Nightly News post. As I already highlighted above, but you can't read - "The only thing I see with a quick search is an NBC retiree with a "draft" post in July."

A Kos diary, also in July.

Wow, what a "movement."

False flag.

Hillary ain't running, and isn't going to be drafted unless something blows up.

Obama beats Perry.

You want Mitt instead of Perry?

The Patch is reporting President Obama will be in Atherton on Sunday not Woodside.

$35,000 a plate.

Web Link

35 grand for grub with the guy who signed a bill in December for tax cuts for billionaires? It kept taxes on millionaires and billionaires lower than they've ever been.

Quite a deal.

I will be meeting with him and am glad he has all your support.
He has a wonderful surprise to the state and this area.

"signed a bill in December for tax cuts for billionaires"

was that a surprise?

can we afford anymore surprises like that?

did it create any jobs?

It's both Woodside and Atherton in one afternoon.

Here's an update:

Web Link

So are they elected by the people, or bought by the people?

"So are they elected by the people, or bought by the people?"

Bought

It was just great last time that his helicopters flew in circles for two hours+ over RWC and SC while dining with the fat cats in Woodside. What a joke. It is nice to see people throw away their money into his pockets. He will need it as he will not make the kind of money that Clinton makes in his retirement. Obama is so in over his head. Just admit it! We need a real leader and not someone who gives good Teleprompter.

"In over his head???" You've got the wrong guy for that phrase --- that was Bush Jr., who put us in the international and internal situation we're in now.

We are being told that the reason President Obama is so impotent when attempting to deal with Congress is the tremendous power of the Tea Party. The White House also tells us that the reason for our nation's credit rating downgrade is the math skills of one of the two rating agencies that have reduced our credit score. We are told by this President that the reason millions are out of work and can't find jobs is a fellow named Bush who was president over two and 2/3 years ago. We are told by the Obama State Department that the reason we are helpless to stop the slaughter in Syria is that the Arab leaders are holding us hostage. This baloney is fed to us when we are flying our Ambassador, Robert Ford; back to his office in Syria at exactly the same time the Arab leaders are recalling their Ambassadors to directly protest the slaughter in Syria. We are told that the war in Libya is not a war. We announce our withdrawal plans to the enemy overseas because it sounds good to politicians here at home. Think of it: the lives of our troupes are put at risk for a sound bite on a 6PM newscast. The nature of the underlying problem strongly suggests that things will continue to get worse and they are not likely to get better until the Obama term ends and a new President takes office in January, 2013.

dt - When Bush left office, he was bleeding America with 700,000 job losses a month, so your statement is a little hollow in light of facts: "...the reason millions are out of work and can't find jobs is a fellow named Bush ..."

Most of the rest of your claims are similarly skewed or devoid of facts, like: "attempting to deal with Congress is the tremendous power of the Tea Party"

No. it's guys like McConnell and Cantor who publicly stated their #1 goal isn't to help Americans, but to block Obama from succeeding in anything so he has a lousy economy to run on. How patriotic.

You don't like the guy - no problem. Your whining and attempts to mislead casual observes is weak.

Regarding troops? at the debate last night, on video, an active duty soldier asked a question. NOT ONE of the GOP candidates thanked him for his service. How patriotic.

Hypocrites.

GOP didn't thank him for his service? What, was he gay or something?

They must have twisted themselves in knots.

I am willing to go for his message for all of us.....Let the rich look at the things they do and never bothered to do and those who didn't will never run for public office again.
It is wonderful to hear so many people here concerned for the State and for the jobs that people who have learned their lessons of self gratification,feel enriched and aware their consciences, and are now saving at least 100 jobs for a company which drove her to the gates of the White House.
Meg deserves applause for showing us that money cannot buy happiness.

“Unless the economy turns around in the next 18 months, Obama is on track to have the worst jobs record of any president in the modern era. That would be an accurate statement.”

This pronouncement comes not from Glen Beck but from Glenn Kessler, fact checker for the Left Leaning Washington Post​. This prediction from the bastion of liberalism is extremely damaging to the Obama Administration, since the Post is widely regarded as a stridently pro-Obama newspaper.

No president is personally responsible for every lost job in America. But the point is that like every other president, Obama is being judged by what happens on his watch. And Kessler’s own article lays out the empirical evidence provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So the case against Obama’s policies and why they have had a gravely harmful effect on our economy has been proven once again.

The damning indictment made by Kessler is one that cannot be disputed. And the fact that Kessler is willing to make the claim he did — without caveats — is remarkable.

So Liberals, you can caterwaul about Bush all you want but the indisputable fact is that Obama has caused far more damage to the economy than Bush has in only one third the time.

DT writes, "the indisputable fact is that Obama has caused far more damage to the economy than Bush has in only one third the time." An interesting approach to reality, DT.

I agree that Obama has caused a lot of damage to the economy, and I believe the reason is that his choices of financial advisors were dreadful. And because he's been too willing to try to compromise with people whose primary goal is to see him fail.

But to say that Obama's inability to fix the economy after it was run into the tar pits of the damned by W means that he has "caused far more damage to the economy" than his predecessor is stunningly ridiculous. You seem like a smart person, so I have the feeling you know that. Ideology is not a friend to reason.

What are you all talking about? Stop with the fixation on blaming Bush over blaming Obama. Blame Democrats in Congress for putting pressure to provide everyone the ability to buy a home when most couldn't afford it as far back as Clinton's term. Then blame the Republicans and Wall Street and the crisis in the mortgage backed securities when the reality began to hit home. Trying to make Bush or Obama look better or worse or to take all the blame is just childish and unproductive. I worked in DC during the Bush years. He was no idiot, just as Obama is no idiot. I can't say the same for most of Congress, particularly the Senate. That's where a lot of the blame lies in my mind. They are no doubt happy to see everyone attack the President, past or present while it takes the light off them.

"unless....Obama is on track to have the worst jobs record of any president... "

Bush inherited an economy adding a half million jobs a month (20 million new jobs under Clinton.)

Bush left office with his last couple months dropping 700,000 jobs a month, consecutively.

Apples and oranges.

doubting thomas doesn't offer links, because his statements get shot apart in context.

Cherry picking a single sentence - disingenuous, if not outright dishonest.

Now I get why no one seems to care a whit about what doubting thomas says - he's so crazily partisan that his statements cannot be trusted.

So sad.

The whole paragraph, first, what doubt pasted:

"Unless the economy turns around in the next 18 months, Obama is on track to have the worst jobs record of any president in the modern era. That would be an accurate statement. "

the rest of the paragraph reads


"But he also became president in the midst of the worst recession of our lifetimes — and it seems a real stretch to make him personally responsible for every one of those lost jobs, without bothering to offer a shred of evidence for the claim."

also in the article:

"Moreover, the same data set shows that the economy started losing jobs nearly 12 months before Obama took the oath of office — for a total of 2.3 million jobs. In fact, 820,000 jobs were lost just in January 2009, and Obama took office Jan. 21, so he was president for less than half that month.

If you move January 2009 to the pre-Obama period, then the job losses are about 3.1 million before he took office and 2.2 million after he took office. Perry claims that Obama has “killed” these jobs, but clearly by any reasonable measure Obama took office in the middle of a pretty bad recession."

Web Link

Cherry picking a sentence when it's surrounded with facts that explain so much. Just to falsely apply blame about the greatest American economic tragedy since the Great Depression to our current President.

Pathetic. Lying about the President to score political points.

Pathetic.

Get a life.

Or move out of the country if you hate America that much.

Cherrypicking one sentence from a paragraph and hiding the source (no link) is pretty...

WEAK.

Bush's last month was 820,000 jobs lost? Stimulus gave us the biggest middle class tax cut in history and saved/created 1.5 to 3 million jobs.

Tea baggers sure forget how things have improved. No jobs lost last month?

Great. Let's rebuild our infrastructure to support a great economy moving forward.

Quit (tr)icking around, pass the jobs act, rebuild America, get Americans employed and paying taxes, and creating demand for other small businesses!

The world wants to lend us money at near historically low rates to do so.

Employ Americans. Rebuild America.

Let’s look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics data.

During the Bush presidency, net total employment went up by 1.08 million jobs. So far, during the Obama presidency, total employment has been reduced by 3.3 million jobs.

Nuff said.

And the reason Bush had net jobs gain? Clnton signed a bill which opened the flood gates of money from banks. People took seconds to buy cars, luxury items, remodels and a whole host of things they wouldn't and couldn't have had lending regulations not been loosened. We all know how that worked out. You can't credit Bush for the job gains as he didn't do anything to make it happen.

Trajectory. Bush benefited from Clinton's job creation, but left to his own devices, efet offices with 820,000 job loss per month.

820,000 families with their lives damn near destroyed because of his tax cutting "job creation (ha!)" policies.

820,000 per MONTH lost jobs.

You can twist the Truth all you want but the bottom line is that 1.08 Million Jobs were created under Bush and over 3 Million Jobs were lost under Obama in less than 1/3 the time.

And while we're at it how about the mounds of debt that Obama has put us under? Bush spent too much money, but Obama had Bush beat in his 1st year in office.

Now lets look at the Obama Hero Jimmy Carter. Carter was so bad that for the first time we had Stagflation. It was Reagan that pulled us out of the mess that we got into. He created over 13 million jobs, had less than 5% unemployment, dropped inflation below 4% and had less than 1.4% on welfare. Obama is starting to put us back on the path that Carter had us on. History shows it does not work.

Bush left office "with 820,000 job loss per month"

Stunning numbers. Bush did have job growth in the government sector, as well as employing private contractors to fight the wars. Part of his shameful spending that destroyed Clinton's budget surplus.

Obama has cut government jobs, and booted private sector jobs.

Why is dt so angry?

Bush "with 820,000 job loss per month" to flat job growth is actually a tremendous achievement in this Bush economy, in particular with the GOP blocking every move they can, just for political gain, as MacConell told us a couple years ago.

Bragging about Bush's 1 million jobs over 8 years while he doubled national debt, Reagan with 13 million, while he also doubled national debt.

Clinton had 20 million plus and left a budget surplus.

Perspective.

Doubting:

you are the only one "twisting facts." You want to believe Bush was some sort of "god" even though he drove us over a cliff and that Obama who has been doing a poor job of dealing with Bush's mess is the devil. So be it. You clearly have an agenda and do not wish to deal with actual facts. Typical of those on the far right you are just as blinded by your agenda as those on the far left. That leaves those of us in the middle to clean up your messes. Frankly, I'm sick of it.

One thing the public won't tolerate is a spinelss president who won't accept responsibility for his own mistakes. He has been president for over 2 2/3 years and he is still bellyaching about Bush. Grow up Obama! Be a mensch for once in your life! If he keeps on going down the Jimmy Carter Road he will be defeated much to the relief of most people in the United States. Even the Trade Union members are disenchanted with this glib but nonproductive president

Here are some excerpts from Today's Mercury News:

"Along the way, more than 100 conservative protesters carrying signs and chanting "one-term president!" greeted the president's motorcade at Sand Hill Road and Whiskey Hill Road".

"Owen Jones, 59, of Fremont, held a sign saying, 'Illegals cost U.S. trillions -- no more freebies for illegal aliens'."

"Jones said he has spent 40 years as a union carpenter watching his trade and his livelihood 'stolen by illegal immigration'."

"Another protester's sign carried the sentiment that 'Our grandkids can't afford 4 more years of buffoonery'."

"This is my concern now because I have a 6-month-old grandson," said the sign-holder, Diane Wall, 66, a Novato resident. "The poor tot is going to be paying and paying and paying."

So there you have it. Union Members, Grandmas and ordinary citizens fed up with the clueless socialsit who is dragging our country down. I can't wait for November 2012 for Obamageddon.

"Jones said he has spent 40 years as a union carpenter watching his trade and his livelihood 'stolen by illegal immigration'."

You want to hang this one on Obama!!!? You have got to be kidding. Both parties are guilty of ignoring this problem. The trades have been destroyed by illegal imigration, but it started long before Obama took office. Long before Bush for that matter. This has been a problem for a long time which neither party has shown any intestinal fortitude toward fixing. Illegal immigration is Obama's fault. What a hoot!

hey doubting thomas:

""Owen Jones, 59, of Fremont, held a sign saying, 'Illegals cost U.S. trillions -- no more freebies for illegal aliens'." "Jones said he has spent 40 years as a union carpenter watching his trade and his livelihood 'stolen by illegal immigration'.""

What president gave illegals amnesty? Some republican named Ronald Reagan.

Illegal immigration is down the last 4 years, mostly due to Bush driving the economy into a ditch. Remember this?

"Bush left office with 820,000 job loss per month"

The bottom line is that 1.08 Million Jobs were created under Bush and over 3 Million Jobs were lost under Obama in less than 1/3 the time.

This is a ridiculous discussion -- which begs the question as to why I am about to participate ... oh well.

Maybe if everyone says the same thing here for the 5th time, the other side will be convinced?

People need to divorce their political views from their self-esteem and their need to be correct. When that happens, maybe reason will prevail.

@DT, your claims are tantamount to saying that a car rolling down a hill with no breaks and no motor can be corrected instantaneously if one simply has the correct ideology. That's either intentionally disingenuous or just dumb. Neither options is flattering. Inertia. Look it up.

On the other side, it would behoove people still enchanted with Obama to acknowledge the fact that despite all of his talk about personal responsibility, he has done little to bring this to his actual policy agenda. Bringing free health care to more people sounds great if one assumes that all health care promotes actual health and productivity, and if one believes that increasing below market cost access to a scarce resource has ever been a path to efficient allocation of that resource. The same is true with extending unemployment benefits to some who have been on the dole for 2 years. Crazy.

This partisan nonsense is killing this country -- just like the dedication to hyper-religiosity is killing the Republican Party and kowtowing to unions is killing the Democrat Party.

We're all screwed.

"We're all screwed."

Pretty much sums up the situation we're in.

Oh, and I forgot to add that while we are screwing ourselves, the Chinese are laughing at us.

Astounding -

Superb post. Maybe people SHOULD read it five times.

I agree that this economy was on life support when Mr. Obama took office and that it was the fault of horrible governance by the Bush Administration, Congress and every other regulatory body. I agree that such a troubled economy couldn't be "turned around" very quickly.

But we are now approaching three full years of Obama policies - and nearly unprecedented government spending - and all of the metrics are bad and seem to be getting worse. At what point does Mr. Obama, who owned every branch of government for his two first two years, own this economy? P.S. I'm tired of hearing "Bush" invoked every time this is pointed out. We got it...

The latest Treasury Department posting shows the national debt has now increased $4 trillion under President Obama's watch.

The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office. The latest calculation from Treasury shows the debt has now hit $14.639 trillion.

It's the greatest increase in national debt under any U.S. president.

The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-years under George W. Bush. The debt now is rising at a pace to easily surpass the Bush debt during Mr. Obama's four-year (and hopefully only) term.

The Gross National Debt now stands at 97.6 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product - the total value of goods and services produced by labor and property in the U.S.

And All Obama can do is blame Bush. He sounds like a baby "Waaa, It all Bush's fault". The "Blame Game" has morphed into the "Lame Game".

People are so fed up with Obama making excuses and not accepting responsibiity that it is now highly unlikely that he will succeed at getting a second term. The presidency is not a suicide pact between the president and the electorate. We are not going to drink any more Kool Aid to help him gain another term at the expense of the welfare of our great nation. For Obama it is "Barackalypse Now".

"The national debt increased $4.9 trillion during the eight-years under George W. Bush."

Yes.

Bush doubled the national debt. He did so by taking a budget surplus and giving it all away on his way to the first ever trillion dollar deficits.

Bush took an economy that created 20 million jobs before him and left a disaster shedding 750,000 jobs a month.

Obama was handed that economic disaster, 750k job loss per month and trillion dollar deficits and what did you expect him to do? Continue Bush's policies of destruction?

He's took job losses from 750,000 losses per month to actual growth in the private sector, until the GOP started their threats of shutting down the government and defaulting on debts erased that growth to where it is this month - flat.

Still better than Bush's negative 750k per month job loss.

"and nearly unprecedented government spending"

"nearly" unless you compare it to Republican presidents. Reagan tripled the debt, Bush doubled it, Clinton left a surplus.

On July 3, 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama​ said this:

"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China​ in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents — #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible. It’s unpatriotic".

How typical of Obama. He couldn’t simply express his policy disagreements with President Bush; he had to add his characteristic slander (Bush’s actions were “unpatriotic.”) Back in those days, before Obama carried the burdens of governing, it all seemed so simple. And now, two-and-a-half years into his presidency, Obama has made virtually everything he has touched worse. He turns out to be a man of unquestionable incompetence.

I would add among the many differences between Bush and Obama is the former made a very serious run at entitlement reform (Social Security) while the latter put us on an unprecedented spending spree, including a hugely expensive (and injurious) entitlement program, the Affordable Care Act.

Privatizing social security isn't "reform". It's a gift to Wall Street banksters. If that's the best you can say about Bush........???????????

"Obama has made virtually everything he has touched worse. " Speak in platitudes and 30 second Fox soundbites all you want, but you're wrong.

You are wrong. Bush left losing 750,000 jobs a month, and Obama righted that ship. We've a long way to go. It's time for the GOP to recognize that challenge.

Job creation,and Republican attempts to block it, are the most important thing for our economy.

I've been wondering what EXACTLY the Repubs would do differently to create jobs, save the banks, help the unemployed, etc., if they had their president in office? I've been trying to get info on this for awhile & there's no clear answer/plan that the Repubs in my life have told me - & they're pretty informed people.

I don't think Obama's the bee's knees, & I'm not thrilled w/his attitude toward Wall St., but the man is a politician, not a saint or even a reformer. Where would we be if he hadn't done what he did bailout-wise when he took office? I truly don't ask that question snidely, I'm seriously wondering.

[Post removed. This is an article copied from another website. You an post a link but also comment on it. Don't copy and paste entire articles from other websites. Be sure to clearly identify the source.]

posted yesterday here Web Link and elsewhere

Pearl - thanks for the tip on thomas's copying and pasting

Along with a complete lack of ability to think on his own.

Sad.

I went and checked out obamas motorcade just out of curiosity. I ended up taking pictures and video of the escort and all it's vehicles; but I had one problem, I was approached by a couple red-shirted elderly women and was asked where my sign was. I told them I was neutral in the means of irately writing clever hateful things aout Obama on a sign that he will most definitely not even acknlowledge during his 3 seconds of being in view of me standing on the road. They didn't understand that people could have their own opinions but not have to scream them in a sympathy-begging manner to people that will only think less of them for being out of control and frankly, irrational.

Is there a difference between having a right to your opinion and having a right to inflict it on everybody else in a condescending way that portrays only they know the real meaning of life?

You show up to stand by yourself and observe, and you still get attacked by extremely irate and emotional extremists. Is this what the tea party is all about? Or are they giving a bad name to the tea party by wearing tea party shirts?

This is not about political differences, this is about acting in a respectable humanly manner. Wouldn't it be better if everybody just heard all sides and tried to have a practical and logical sense of election?