...from that of the Republicans.

Here's the link to a transcript from a real press conference. You know, those things where we are supposed to actually learn something and come away with some stuff to think about?

Yeah, those.

I remain convinced this election is about a corrupt power structure that's manipulating us for it's own gain. On a less tin foil hat plane, the simple take away here is that Obama is going to put the truth, or the closest thing we have to it, out there for discussion.

I've signed up for some Republican mailers. Think of it as a former party member worried about how extreme liberalism is going to impact us.

The crap I've gotten is simply beyond rational consumption.

What we are going to hear this election is a lot of noise, just like the noise posted here from time to time. It's crap, and not Randy's kind of crap either. Just crap.

We all know what happens when too many people vote Republican.

Obama is absolutely going to change that. I'm stoked about this election! I'm not stoked from a "we win, you lose" point of view either. That's for idle discussion and entertainment --therapy. All fun, all good.

I'm stoked because we need the wake up call big. None of us are going to like everything that comes from it. Of that, I am sure.

We need it though, and that's leadership. Obama, despite the crap that is going to be said, is a Statesman. For those that don't really know what the word means, just watch the guy for a while.

When the crap comes up, just remember that Republicans LOSE on every issue that matters, up to and including homeland security. Republicans have pandered to everybody that has an axe to grind, promising them satisfaction and what's the result of that?

A broken, angry, scared, divided and impotent nation.

http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-obama-presser-2/

I was impressed with how Obama responded to this veiled criticism by Bush in Israel. Unlike Kerry in 2004, it's obvious Obama is going to hit back quickly when smeared by the right wing, even by a sitting president giving a speech overseas.

Andrew

You libs missed the point rather badly. Bush was cutting Jimmy Carter a new one for his meetings with Hamas. That's why it was done on Israeli soil, because it concerned the Israelis directly. Nothing more. Had nothing to do with Obama.

It's interesting how Obama immediately had a guilty concience that he was the one who would be thought of as appeasing the enemy. Same for Polosi and Reid. Collective screams of "we're guilty of that kind of stupidity".

Then, along come you guys on this forum sucked right into the same fan.

You wonder why I take exception once in a while to the stupid and inflamatory statements made on this forum.

And you right-wing lunatics are going to have to be taught that you can't keep smearing people and getting away with it. Further, if people wonder why Hamas favors Obama or Clinton or any Democratic elected this year over McCain, this is why: a clearly pro-Israel stand by Bush/McCain, not the neutral stand taken by Bill Clinton. The Palestinians (including Hamas) clearly don't want a US president who is so biased toward Israel.

Andrew

Hamas kills innocent women and children. How can anybody worth spit take a neutral stand towards them? I know, appeasers.

" Bush was cutting Jimmy Carter a new one for his meetings with Hamas."

I didn't know that. How do you know that? Or, do you know it? Isn't McCain talking about talking to Hamas now too?

Clinton took a neutral stand in ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. You may not know this, Deane, but Hamas is a Palestinian group, so it makes sense that Palestinians might prefer a neutral US president to a staunchly pro-Israel president.

Andrew

"I didn't know that. How do you know that"

He said so.

What you all want to overlook is that the Palestinians want Israel destroyed. There's nothing to talk about.

I'm really confused about who is who over there and who wants what to happen for whom. I try and pay attention, but I miss important things sometimes. Like Bush saying he was talking about and to Carter. I consider than relatively important. Yet, I missed it. It's not for lack of trying or having blinders on - I just don't know very much about all of that over there. It's complicated, to me.

Obama has ZERO guilt.

Again, just crap from sour grapes Republicans.

Me too Andrew. It's damn nice to see a reasoned, timely response to the smears. So far, he's managed to turn each of them right back on the nut bags, who should think twice because of their own dirty laundry.

To me, it's a good exchange. It's easy to see most of the Republican party for their very poor performance.

Missing, after your last post, I understand why you go by the handle "Missing". You completely missed it on this one. There was no smear. Nobody was talking about Obama. Obama just thought the shoe fit so he'd wear it.

Deane: That performance IS poor. There is absolutely no doubt. It is their responsibility too. Republicans decided to brand anybody that dared question some quick 'n dirty, shut up label.

That's over now.

Obama will take that, mix in the facts the best he knows them, and continue with an accountable, rational discussion.

On this, most of the Republican party is going to lose.

I think they lose simply because those tactics weaken them. After shutting down so many people, they become locked into whatever policy they've chosen, with little ability to move and change and adapt to new information and ideas.

So, here we are. Sour grapes time. If Republicans really are running on change, then that also must come with acceptance and accountability for the mistakes made to date.

That is the only way to move forward in a productive and positive fashion.

Obama knows this, and that is a big part of why I posted this here.

Obama is running on change, and means it. He's got very little baggage to constrain him, unlike the majority of the Republican party.

"He's got very little baggage"

Very little experience either.

The Republicans are in trouble because they abandoned what Republicanism stands for. It wasn't just Bush, it includes a bunch in Congress also. I've said since the 2006 election that the Republicans deserve what they got.

Now, back to change. That's what people wanted when Jimmie Carter came along. That didn't work so good did it. Those of us who have been around for awhile realize that can, and likely will, happen again with Obama. The younger people see only hope. I see only inexperience and naiveté.

I go by the handle "Missing_KSKD" because...

Nostalga mode = 1

I grew up here in the 80's listening to a very well executed radio station; KSKD. Once it was sold, I realized I missed the format and the playlists.

Fast forward to sometime in 2003. Prior to that time, I had been reading various things here, off and on, almost since the site went live. Decided to begin contributing for a lot of reasons.

Glad I did, on that note --thanks Dan!

Missing_KSKD was a radio related handle, and somewhat outside the norm for me. I'm also very glad I did that too.

Could have been Missing_KBBT too, but alas... what is done is done. Given my views on AM, Missing_KBBT is probably the better handle.

Nostalga mode = 0

The deal here Deane, is that misinformation abounds. Obama works hard to clarify and refine that. This is wise in that if these things are allowed to fester and grow, they become harder to deal with.

Ask Kerry about that dynamic. Obama knows better and is a competitor. If it's in the Presidental discussion, it's his turf and he's not going to give quarter unless it's the right thing to do.

Now, the beauty of this is that nobody is going to really think about this all that much going forward. Why bother, when people got bloodied up? Funny how that works, isn't it?

We are here now, dealing with this right now, thus leaving future discussions as clean and clear as possible.

I know that's a very tough one for the Republicans to deal with, given their clear challenges on the issues and their performance, but it's the right thing to do period, end of story.

Did you check out Tweety the other day?

Obama is catchy! He just hammered a Republican, high octane "APPEASER, I SWEAR HE'S AN APPEASER, CHRIS IT'S ALL ABOUT HIM APPEASING.", motor mouth, moron!

Sweet.

Here, check this out for a sampling of how it's gonna go this election:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/17/152122/460/151/517504

Picking on people, to avoid rational discussion, is so OLD school. Time to move on man.

Heh... Change we deserve indeed.

Anything Obama is going to do is not bloody likely to be worse than what the Republicans have done.

I might actually entertain the "forgot what Republicans stand for" line, but for the fact that we don't have ANY Republicans in the running that REMEMBER!

The Republican John McCain is running to complete the Republican George W Bush third term. That's not change! It's stupid.

Missing, there is nothing dailykos has to say that anyone with blood flowing in their veins at all should hear or see. I don't plan to click on that garbage.

But, what you're completely missing is that Bush didn't criticize Obama in Israel. He criticized Jimmie Carter. It was Obama who put Obama in the mix. Followed by Polosi and Reid. Not Bush, not Republicans.

"The Republican John McCain is running to complete the Republican George W Bush third term."

That's the current Democrats talking point memo. It's their major "get McCain" tactic. It will wear well with liberals. It may even work.

Puss.

Missing, if you don't believe it's the new Democratic mantel, watch and see. The proof will be in the pudding, as they used to say.

Yep. We will wait and see.

Obama is a very smart wager, compared to McCain.

I think corruption and arrogance is a good reason to throw the Republicans out of power. They had years to put forth a positive agenda for the country. Instead they became drunk with power and showed us what it means to be fiscally irresponsible, morally challenged and grossly incompetent.

As for the question of engaging in negotiations with the “enemy”, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and George H. W. Bush all negotiated with the Soviets. Nixon went to China and negotiated with North Vietnam. Reagan sent arms to both Iran and Iraq. You could find all sorts of examples of the United States engaging with its enemies.

As for engagement with the Palestinians, it’s better to have some leverage than no leverage at all. To simply say we won’t negotiate with the Palestinian state make zero sense. What’s the alternative, continue to alienate them, and then invade. Sounds like the failed neo-conservative method. Throw the military at the problem. But do we want multiple bloodbaths like the quagmire in Iraq times 5?

George W. Bush’s method of global disengagement makes absolutely no sense. His answer is forget the diplomatic route and uses the military. His crowning example, Iraq. How many simultaneous wars do you want to wage at any given point? Using George W. Bush's logic, we should be fighting not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but Iran, Palestine, North Korea, Venezuela, Lebanon, Cuba. How many dead soldiers would be acceptable? How many trillions of dollars do you want to spend to fight these wars?

Careful Talpdx, you might hit the wall speeding around the track chasing your tail that way.

Once again, Deane_johnson doesn't have anything intelligent to ad except making pithy remarks that would sell well at a posse comitatus rally.

This is the Republican George W Bush legacy.

Republicans do not have the upper hand on ANY issue that matters right now.

What's left, besides actually entering the 5 stages of grief?

Noise.

And coming to acceptance is going to be a LONG road for the remaining Republicans. Gotta happen though --or be marginalized.

Sooner or later, probably later after their power has entered it's sunset period and a few of the nastier ones die off, the party will do exactly what the Democrats are doing.

It will start electing more and better Republicans.

Obama is smart enough to recognize a failed policy and a failed presidency. Obviously, George W. Bush represents both, and regardless of how Republicans want to spin it, they have failed miserably during the past 7 years in office. George W. Bush is an embarrassment not only to the United States but the global community as well. I think of war presidents of yesteryear, most notably Abraham Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt. For George W. Bush to even attempt to compare himself to these giants would be beyond ludicrous.

We deserve honesty and integrity from our leadership. George W. Bush is not only a liar, but he is morally challenged. He is an arrogant failure who lacks compassion and good judgment. Prior to becoming president, he was a failed businessman but had a successful father who found him respectable work. And as governor of Texas, he crowing achievement was putting people to death, very similar to his tenure as president. How many men and women have died under George W. Bush – tens of thousands. And for what, the most discredited political philosophy in modern history. When all is said and done, George W. Bush will be listed at or near the ranking of another US presidential failure, Warren G. Harding.

"Hamas kills innocent women and children. How can anybody worth spit take a neutral stand towards them? I know, appeasers."

And the Israeli government DOESN'T kill innocent women and children? The Palestinian people living in the occupied territories are essential slaves to the Israeli government. They have no more rights than African-American slaves pre-Civil War.

This is a two-sided affair Deane, and the Israeli government is FAR from faultless. All the Palestinians want is a place to call home, and Israel has occupied those lands, blatently violating U.N. protocl and sanctions, for 40 years now almost.

Brianl, the Palestinians use suicide bombers to blowup restaurants, buses, shopping malls, etc. They use rat poison and nails to maximize civilian casualties.

The Israelis try to minimize civilian casualties in their military responses. Innocent Palestinian woman and children are killed because they are used as shields.

BrianL, do you really believe moral equivalency applies in this conflict?

Have fun with that Brian.

All I read is that George Bush is no good. I don't read any lists of Obama's accomplishments, nothing about his capabilities as a foreign policy expert, nothing about his expertise on the economy, nothing on his experience that will allow him to control the boarder, nothing in his background that would help him solve the energy crisis. Nothing. Just that he has hope and wants change. Just that he's the Messiah who's going to lead us to the promised land. I call bullshit.

Have fun with that Missing, kskd.

Gee, when was the last time we elected a president on resume. Last time I recall reading a story on the best resume angle, it was George H. W. Bush – and we all know what happened to him. Some have it, some don’t. And some are appointed president, ala George W. Bush. Barack Obama is much more capable than the intellectual dimwit George W. Bush and offers the country something that has been sorely lacking the past 7 years, honesty and integrity. I’d much rather have a president who takes a thoughtful and reasoned approach to matters of both domestic and international import than what we’ve seen in the past 7 years. Some presidents run on the mantle of change, and Obama has every right to do so, and with glee. We’ve been buried knee deep in bulls*it by a man who is incapable of stringing two coherent sentences together.

Obama wants us out of Iraq. Obama understands that global warming isn’t a myth and wants to aggressively move forward by investing hugely in green technology. Obama wants to make it easier for people to access health care. Obama wants to engage the world diplomatically – not behave like an intemperate bully. Obama wants to make college education a reality without breaking the bank. Obama wants to repeal the billionaire tax breaks and restore fiscal sanity to the federal government.

Had we taken George W. Bush on his word, he would have been a compassionate conservative. That went out the window January 20, 2001. There has been nothing compassionate about this man. And in terms of the energy issue, his answer – drill for more oil. Spoken like a true neophyte. Fiscal discipline: laughable. George Bush didn’t meet an appropriations bill he didn’t like until the Democrats won control of the House. Democrats have been trying to restore deep cuts made by the Republicans – programs to help the neediest among us. Billionaire tax cuts for the rich, remember those. Where’s the trickle down impact? Record federal deficits, record trade deficits, record oil prices, record food prices, record home mortgage foreclosures. And Iraq, the biggest lie of all. A quick and carefree military campaign. Well, not even close. I’d take “The Messiah” Barack Obama over what we’ve been hand strung with any day of the week. At least with “The Messiah”, we get moral leadership without the hypocrisy of George W. Bush, the worst president in my lifetime.

Easily.

Changing how Washington works, means continuing to leverage the talent there. The Presidency is not a one man show.

Republicans have shown us what happens when we buy into that idea. Not good.

We elect Presidents, who then go and build administrations. Obama builds damn good ones. Just look at how he manages his campaign for a glimpse of that.

And again we have the end game.

McCain isn't a better choice, leaving Obama. At the least, he's a very smart wager. At the best, if you've bothered to find out what he plans to do, it's a done deal. Easy cheezy.

Everybody, that's worried about Republicans losing power is calling bull shit. They should! It's been 7+ years of bull shit.

I want a President without a lot of political baggage. Obama is running on individual money. People money, not special interest / corporate / lobby money.

This is HUGE!

2 million individual, small amount doners, donating REGULARLY, means he's not owned by anybody going in, leaving him to act in our best interests the best he can.

McCain can't say that. He's got baggage up the ass.

Oh, here's a beauty too.

Back when the SCOTUS selected the shrub, there was all this talk about how he was able to pick good people and that was a strength. Bush is flat out dumb compared to Obama.

So now we've got a very smart and articulate Presidential candidate and that's not ok some how?

You go ahead and vote McCain. Both of you.

Assuming he does not tip over, and can remember he's running, you can support his loss all the way to the end, then bitch about things from there on.

It's all good.

Me?

I'm going for the guy who wants to take a lot of the dollars out of government and is smart and strong.

You remaining Republican McCain supporters have absolutely NOTHING to run on! We can talk about this stuff all day long and still you've got NOTHING.

That's exactly why we see this noise now. If the Republican party brought anything POSITIVE to the table, worthy of any real consideration, then we could actually have a reasoned discussion about what is worth what and for who that matters.

But we don't have that, so all you've really got is "Obama is bad" kinds of things that might make you feel better, but that's it.

Have fun with that deane.

Israel is a terrorist nation. Let them defend themselves. Personally, I'd like for the US to dial down our support of Israel because our relationship with them is the root of many of our problems today. Simply put, they are not worth it. They've got nukes (paid for by us), let them back up their own actions.

>>Israel is a terrorist nation

Come on...you've got to be kidding...a postage stamp sized country in the middle east going around terrorizing everyone. You've redefined the word "bully".

Don't let the geographical size of a country deceive you Broadway. Israel has had for a long time one of the best military's in the world.

Broadway, ask yourself why people despise Israel? There is a reason, and it's because they are a bully, and by definition, the US is a bully because we bankroll them and protect them. Let them defend themselves!

Turn on the news sometime stupid, its not the people of Isreal strapping bombs to little kids to send into a market to kill a bunch of Jews.

Ever hear of Nazi Germany? Read a history book and you will soon understand why they need protection.

Imagine if you were in charge of this country during WW2, there would be no Isreal. Probably would be no such thing as a Jew.

What you all want to overlook is that the Palestinians want Israel destroyed.

Saudi Arabia wants America destroyed and pays BILLIONS to TERRORISTS every year to DESTROY our way of life and YOUR President is in BED with them....

I think it’s clear that part of the Bush agenda for invading Iraq was providing Israel backup in the region. Up until our invasion, we most certainly did not have the permanent presence that we do now. With that said, stability in the region is needed now more than ever. But finding a way forward is a monumental task, and George W. Bush has waited until the last year of his presidency to lend US prestige to find a measure of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The death of Arafat was a start, because I don’t think he ever had any intention of negotiating in good faith with Israel. I think he was more interested in enriching himself and stoking the flames of anti-Israeli sentiment. Maybe it’ll be a draw, with the drama that has played out since 1948 continuing without a long term resolution. Maybe we should just accept the fact that both sides hate each other and as such will continue to pick at one another. Perhaps a permanent referee might work. But working small steps forward makes far more sense than making grand promises that fall flat and disappoint everyone in the process.

The one thing that needs to be resolved is the lack of economic hope for the Palestinians. If their economic plight were improved, maybe tensions might de-escalate. A possibility? Then they could focus on something other than hating Israel. But I think ample engagement from the world community is important. And I do feel that wealthy Arab countries could do more to help the Palestinians. I think they’ve dropped the ball on this matter. Simplistic I know, but it’s a tough one.

Marvin, before you address me as being stupid, maybe you should learn how to spell Israel if you're going to defend it? And as far as history goes, I think you do yourself a disservice by ignoring it.

In order to understand the situation, one must objectively look as to why sentiment exists against Israel. It's not simply because they are Jews.

*PLONK*

>>why people despise Israel? There is a reason, and it's because they are a bully, and by definition, the US is a bully because we bankroll them and protect them. Let them defend themselves!

How can a country be a bully and need defending by US?
Who is Israel bulling?

"How can a country be a bully and need defending by US?
Who is Israel bulling?"

You're kidding me, right? Who is Israel bullying? With all due respect sir, do you ever pay attention to the news even?

Ask the Palestinians, who live under draconian, oppressive conditions with zero rights whatsoever and forced servitude to the Israelis, who Israel is bullying. Their lives aren't much different really than the slaves here pre-Emancipation Proclimation.

Israel has been in violation of numerous UN resolutions regarding the Occupied Territories and their treatment of the Palestinians for some 40 years now. Yet we're buddy buddy with them, saving them from their neighbors?

All the Palestinians want is a place to call home. Seems reasonable to me.

!?!

Israel continues to give up more and more land.

Meanwhile, they're outnumbered 30 to 1 by those who wish to destroy them.

After the holocaust, and given Iran's stated intent to destroy them, one can hardly blame Israel for defending themselves.

But much of the same crowd who wants to make Israel defenseless are those who want to ban the 2nd Amendment here. No surprise, these leftists. Historically, that's the first thing they want to do...disarm the good guys.

Herb

Actually, the majority of people want some equatable solution and to move on.

That's it.

The ongoing conflict, until settled between the two peoples, does nobody any good.

Herb's MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY mentality isn't going to solve anything.

This issue to me is land grab power play and has been going on for thousands of years and won't be resolved till future "prophetic" events happen which (the topic) would really open another can of worms here!

Broadway, what "prophetic" events will resolve the situation?

Seriously, that's one of the dumbest comments ever posted here. Do you believe New Orleans was punished by god as well? In this day and age, it's appalling to me that people believe this kind of garbage.

Personally, I don't see Israel is one of the "good guys". They are terrorists with more weapons and US backing, so it's no surprise that their enemy must resort to terrorism as well. Both sides of the fight are guilty.

Come on, you guys don't believe in the study of Eschatology? My brother actually got his Phd Doctoral on the subject so I get into a great conversations each time I'm with him. Wish he could join us.

>>that's one of the dumbest comments ever posted here

Not pretending to be smart/intellegent...just trying to be wise.

Psalm 111...Fear of the Lord is the foundation of true wisdom. All who obey his commandments will grow in wisdom.

Wise people don't fall for fairy tales...

Back to Obama..
I'm liking this guy more every day...

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20080519/Obama.Wife/

He's kicking ass on the high road and taking names.

Love it.

"He's kicking ass on the high road and taking names."

In his naivety, he's opening up something that he doesn't need to. He'll get about as much response as when he sits down for tea with Iran. She makes political statements and speeches, that makes her fair came for criticism. Did he think he was going to get a free ride through his wife? Dumb.

This is yet another example of the low road the GOP must take in any reasonable attempt to win. They can't argue over the issues, so they smear in the hopes their redneck, uneducated, and racist constituents fall for the smear.

But, it appears to me that Obama ain't gonna let that shit happen on his watch. He probably knows like most that when you punch a bully in the face, it will be shown what a true pussy the bully really is.

Exactly.

That's a life lesson, many of us learn in primary school.

I'm a bit confused by remarks by both Herb and Broadway. Both go a long way to point out Bible verses which speak to how one is "saved" as it relates to their interpretation of the Bible. But since Jews are not Christians and thus have not accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior, then why should Herb and Broadway care so much about Israel? Shouldn’t your Christian largesse show compassion for all of God’s children, wherever they call home?

Now I know Herb might accuse this leftist of being an anti-semite, a NAMBLA lover or child molester for calling him out like this, that's his stock and trade and all. But again, I am a bit confused.

For the record, I am a strong supporter of Israel. And as a liberal, I'm proud of that it was a Democrat, Harry S Truman, who made the decision to recognize Israel as an independent state. So to accuse Democrats of trying to undercut Israel is absurd.

God says not to divide Israel. Simple as that:

"FOR BEHOLD, in those days and at that time when I shall reverse the captivity and restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather all nations and will bring them down into the Valley of Jehoshaphat, and there will I deal with and execute judgment upon them for their treatment of My people and of My heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations and because they have divided My land."
[Joel 3:1-2]

God says? Or man says?

Gullible loser. When out of arguments, post bible passages.

I’m confused. In the scripture you quote, God calls the Israelites "His people". However, given your extremely narrow interpretation of who goes to heaven and who doesn’t, these folks are sh*t out of luck -- with His people getting the short end of the stick. Being that Jews are non-Christians, their afterlife is one of sweltering heat and miserable living conditions. Again, the contradictions are astounding.

Hardly.

There's a New Covenant and an Old Covenant.

Herb

In his naivety, he's opening up something that he doesn't need to. He'll get about as much response as when he sits down for tea with Iran. She makes political statements and speeches, that makes her fair came for criticism. Did he think he was going to get a free ride through his wife? Dumb.

One of the dumbest statements I EVER read on this message board EVER!

And they obviously contract one another. That’s what I call confusing. And since these two covenants are not entirely on the same page, I guess most of it is left to interpretation. Sounds like your brand of Christianity is pure hyperbole.

What exactly has Michelle Obama said that is so inflammatory? If you listen to Sean Hannity, you’d think she was a Black Panther. It’s clearly desperation time for conservatives. They can’t nail Obama, so they take on his wife. Typical GOP Hate Machine tactics. Rather than focusing on the issues, they focus on superfluous b*llshit than means absolutely nothing. Expect that for the next 6 months or so, everything will be fair game to the conservatives. From race baiting to making disparaging remarks about Obama’s daughters, they do it all, period. Their like a broken record. In fact, they eat their young. With them, it’s never about the substance of issues but rather the window dressing that gets their attention.

"Did he think he was going to get a free ride through his wife? Dumb."

Perhaps not.
But it gives him an opportunity to show that he will not take that shit and rollover like his predesessors did.

Conservative dogma is not logical by any standard other than conservative theory, which has no root in modern economics, modern religion or modern world affairs. The conservatives live in a microcosm they themselves invented, and as their temporary grip on influence and power in American politics fades to black it is only expected that they begin to grasp at straws.

Sean Hannity is the second most hypocritical talking head after O'Lilee. The right wing fails to ever acknowledge that political talk show hosts are entertainers, not learned people with valuable contributions.

The Republicans are a lot more worried than they let on to be. The losses in Mississippi devastated them. They thought the election in '06 was the bottom, and they are finding out now that they are still in a downhill branding slide that hasn't hit its lowest point yet.

Herb's views are Herb's views. He has every right to spew his lopsided analysis on this forum. He has every right to believe in a distorted view of Christianity's place in American politics. He has every right to cherry pick those parts of the Judeo-Christian ethic that suits his premise. I don't think for a minute Herb is any less qualified to have an opinion when he provides some backing, however he is prone to misinterpret scripture and likely to reject facts that were unavailable to the authors of ancient texts trying to explain that which was during those times unexplainable. This is to say that Herb is a living anachronism. Out of time, out of sync. Whether you as a reader have religious beliefs or not is not the issue. No single dogma applies to every soul. The United States is not a "Christian nation." It was founded by those escaping persecution from oligarchy, plutocracy, and autocracy (depending on whose history book you want to believe). This notion that somehow Jesus' picture should be on the $100 dollar bill is the message Herb sends, though clearly he will deny vehemently what I just wrote. America is in a big mess today because of the ignorance of the American people about how their government operates. Herb and people like him want to operate within a cloistered framework dependent on religious rhetoric for guidance. What trash. A democratic republic run amok in it's capitalistic underpinnings needs a more open analysis, not a constant parallel to some ancient scripture translated so many times and written in a time of chariots and carriages.

"The Republicans are a lot more worried than they let on to be."

What is there to be worried about. We're about to elect a radical liberal black person with no experience as President of the United States, whose Vice President will be the second most liberal member of the Senate, John Edwards. The House will be led by a San Fransisco liberal moron and the Senate by a Las Vegas liberal crook.

Why should any American be worried about anything? After all socialism can't be that bad......can it?

Yep. And it's gonna be great. You'll have to work REALLY hard to find things to bitch about. But you will.

One wonders, Deane, why you felt it necessary to add the word "black" in "radical liberal black person?" Just wondering - does his race make you worry more?

I don't think Edwards will be VP. I don't particularly care for Nancy Pelosi (who is from Baltimore FYI - only moved to SF when she got married) or the pro-life Harry Reid, but they are light years better than the Republicans they replaced.

Perhaps you are most worried about your wallet, Deane? Worried about paying the same tax rate you paid under Bill Clinton?

Andrew

"Just wondering - does his race make you worry more? "

Actually it doesn't bother me even a little bit. As a matter of fact, I wish the Republican candidate was J. C. Watts of Oklahoma.

With more seats in Congress going blue, the warhawk mentality on the way out, big tax breaks and incentives for outsourcing about to come to a screaching halt, the Republicans are about to enter their weakest period in history. That's plenty to be worried about if your heavily endowed in red.

Your tongue in cheek rhetoric is racially tinged, Deane. As I keep pointing out, experience is not a prerequisite for the presidency.
History proves it. Some great presidents had little experience and many awful presidents had lots of experience. The optimum may lie somewhere inbetween. Considering the power players backing Obama, his presidency will have plenty of experience to tap into yet I relish the idea of a fresh look by a politician who is not as bogged down in the concrete shoes of the lobbies and special interests. You have every right to make statements originating in a baseless set of opinions on the future which truly shows how limited your analysis can often be.
When the shrub first was anointed in '00, his campaign rhetoric of uniting the country soon fell by the wayside. His support has waned not only because of all the lies, wrong decisions, and failures but also because he is, above all else, a lousy communicator. His policies are defective and time has not been his friend. He got the country into a big mess, and has done nothing to change its course. His arrogant diplomacy at home and abroad are total failures. The Republican nominee embraces all this failure. Instead of writing of your disgust with your own party, you attack the nominee of the other party with non valid issues (experience). I fail to see the logic in that. Bush had no foreign relations experience but he had a team of experts. Oh, that's right, the shrub hates to take advice from people smarter than him. He has them fired instead, and replaced with sycophantic assistants that will say the right thing. The Republicans deserve to be exactly where they are at this time, and trying to redirect your own disappointment to the platform and participants in the opposing party underscores your own frustration with the current state of affairs.

Andy, your posts would elevate about 6 notches in credibility if you didn't refer to the President of the United States as the shrub. You're a bright guy who often makes sense, even from the wrong viewpoint. Don't lower yourself to join the losers on the forum.

Then why did you describe him as a "radical liberal black"? If he was white, he would just be a "radical liberal", so the fact that he's black scares you even more. Just admit it. Your racism just reared it's ugly head thanks to your own writing.

Deane writes:
Actually it doesn't bother me even a little bit. As a matter of fact, I wish the Republican candidate was J. C. Watts of Oklahoma.

So you'd prefer to have a black radical conservative in the White House? Got it.

Andrew

You got it. But, I don't think J.C. Watts can be described as a radical. He has a lot of common sense, enough to get out of politics.

While we're on the subject, I think it would be good for the country to elect a qualified black President. It would be one of the final hurdles in bringing equal opportunity. I would prefer it not be a liberal, however.

You're a bright guy who often makes sense, even from the wrong viewpoint. Don't lower yourself to join the losers on the forum.

YOU should practice what you preach. When you don't you lose ALL credibility.