Republican committee keeps heat on Obama

The appropriate role of the Republican party while they are not in power is the same as the Democrats in the last administration prior to the last two years.  It is to act as the Brits call it as the "loyal opposition."  That means that the party currently out of power has as its absolute duty to hold the party in powers feet to the fire.  To keep constantly throughout the administrations term a watchdog eye on the promises made during an election and to point out problems with the way those promises are are or not being kept as well as keeping the public aware of any unAmerican activities by any administration.

Obama is the one who promised change and many, many other specific things.  The Republicans (and general public of all parties) has every right to keep barking at Obama's heels and nipping too when necessary to keep him reminded of all that "change" he promised, especially now he is putting lobbyists and old line political hacks in his cabinet.  There is no reason for Republicans to go away.  Look at the way Democrats have behaved in recent years as the sometimes "disloyal opposition" barking and nipping inappropriately (appropiately sometimes) at times.

We will be here and will try to keep Obama honest!  Looks like quite a task but no, we have no intention of going away anytime soon and we shouldn't.

well said miss IFFY.  I just hope that republicans can do it with class and stick to policy issues and not resort to the witch hunt tactics used against Clinton.  If they are able to succeed in this our republic will be the healthier for it.

Anything goes now, Obama will go down in flames. :)

"Anything goes now, Obama will go down in flames. :)"

Anything went against Clinton, and his popularity went skyrocketing because of it.  There's no doubt that he would have demolished Bush Jr. in 2000, were it not for the two term limit.

So, bring it on.  Bring on the smears and the paranoia.  Keep Rush pumping out the slander.  After all, it was Obama's recession a few weeks ago.  Now, after three Obama press conferences and concomitant rises in the stock market, I'm dying to hear how that was really Bush's doing.

Sure, keep it up.  The recession/depression opened up a lot of eyes that had chosen not to see.  Obama's ability to communicate and explain what he is doing and why will keep those eyes open, and, as time goes by, open many, many more.  And if and when his policies don't work as planned, I suspect that Obama has the self-confidence to admit failure, accept the blame, explain the situation to the public, and move on to the next solution.

I know that it's hard to believe this all.  Especially when you assume, before the fact, that nothing Obama utters can possibly be true.  Well, "Slick Willy," another person reactionaries assumed could not utter a truth, only brought the nation eight years of prosperity and a balanced budget.  My God, he actually reduced the deficit!!

I think that anything went during the recent campaign.  It's over.  Most Americans want to get back to working together to solve these pressing problems.  You just jopin with the others like you and keep sniping at Obama's heels and press every conspiracy theory you'd like.  I beg you to.  I implore you to!!  From the bottom of my heart!  Really!!

After all, if you marginalize yourself further, the rest of us will be spared the task.

The Republican campaign was nothing but negativity and all about telling how bad Obama is.  What they forgot to do was to tell what Repubublicans stand FOR.  Now Republicans can stand on the sidelines and snipe or they can pitch in and help fill sandbags.  Obama's appointees are retreads that are a couple of decades fresher than the Nixon/Ford era retreads in the Republican administraton.  The change we're going to see is competance for a change.  Intelligence for another change.  Less dogma and more reality for a change.  That is about all the change we need.  A lot of diehards are wishing for Obama to fail.  You'd better hope he is successful, because a strong economy is essential for a strong defense.  If he fails, you might not see a Republican turn at bat.

Pretty sad they didn't take this view when they were in office, we could of used a couple watchdogs for the current thieving administration, maybe the lies and decietful tactics would have been caught, we may have saved alot of lives and bloodshed and prevented awhole lot of rich CEO's from walking off with money that wasn't theirs.  Why were these thugs never arrested? 

    Simply put they have no ideas no issues and no class. All of the RNC ads during the campaign were the same as the attack ads McCain ran. They only appealed to their base and that is shrinking. All Obama has to do is let them finish themselves off. Loyal opposition does not mean lie lie lie it means come up with your plan to help the country and bring it into the debate. The lies they are issuing are transparent and do not hold water.

Anything goes now, Obama will go down in flames. :)

There is nothing wrong with being the "loyal opposition"; constructive opposition  can lead to solutions. 

However, the above statement by RichardHates is obstructive and impedes progress.  This kind of attitude will not benefit the country.

Before saying Obama lied you must first admit to the lies of this outgoing complete joke of an administration. W and the henchmen were liars of no comparison they raised the bar of liars all over with the blatant bull that poured from the whitehouse these last long 8 years. They should all be arrested for thier crimes against the very constitution they were supposedly supporting. Bush and Cheney have profered hard from the back room policies they embraced. They both should be jailed for the actions they took. Along with others in this administration ( ROVE,LIBBY ect...) they thought they were above the laws of this nation. Thanks for the black eye you left on this country, now go away. You people have raised the level of hatred across the world for us with your illegal dealings and made this country the punch line in a bad joke. Imagine being proud to be republican with such a stigma attached. When that party can stand tall and take the illegal dealings this outgoing administration pulled with regularity and prosecute the perpertators for thier crimes and admit to the world just how WRONG they were I'll respect the party again. Until such time however the same old blahblahblah that we still hear from these people shall fall on deaf ears atleast for myself a FORMER REPUBLICAN.

Hey PA Biker - Wow you and your dem buddies are really brainwashed.  I'm convinced Obama could hire Manson for any position and you brainwashed libs would just love him more.  Blind faith in your messiah will end up causing more destruction than you've ever experienced.  Obama is making mistakes,  He is not bringing any change, he is not trying to bring both sides together, he is being the Chicago thug (sorry Mr. Clinton for using your words) that he is.

I am very surprised that so many people fell for all the stupid impossible promises Obama made.  Welcome to reality; you've all been snowballed.  The country in 4 years will make the disaster we are already in look like a cake walk.  

Maybe the RNC is just using the same tactics that the DNC used so effectively after the previous election and all through the recent campaign. Tit for Tat. Wasn't a big story for the NY Times then, was it?

You can not be in Loyal Opposition to another Party, when you are in Opposition within

your own Party. The Fragmentation within the Republican Party (among other things) is

what has cause their down Fall...instead of CRITICIZING PE Obama..They need to CLEAN

HOUSE and get their own AFFAIRS in order...because right now they are SO RAGGEDY.

All the RNC is saying is that since the media will not do their job as a watch dog for gov. abuse from the Obama administration,they will assume that roll as well. What's wrong with that lefties? Afraid of a little scrutiny? It's not like we are doing what you guys did with Bush and try to destroy by any means possible anyone that was connected to his administration on a 24/7/365 basis.

Hey Republicans, You had your chance. You blew it. Now go away, or we will vote more of you out in the next election.

Vote more Marxists in it's so good for America!

Republican committee keeps heat on Obama

Stay on Obama like white on rice!

Hey Republicans, You had your chance. You blew it. Now go away, or we will vote more of you out in the next election.

Pa. Biker

Ummm, no. During Obama's term in office, the stock market will continue to crash and the economy will follow it into the abyss. The "bailouts" will be revealed as the feckless bungling that they are and become regarded as Washington pols taking care of everyone but Main Street. POTUS and Congress will take the heat for anything and everything the electorate will suffer.  Come 2012 the nation will have concluded correctly or not that Democrats are the bad guys, and they will be voted out.

Hell hath no fury like 50,000,000 unemployed.

Keep on dreaming, rickace, you have truly become the minority party, and because of your hate filled lies, your "ends justify the means" conduct, and the fact that the rest of the country has moved past you, you will continue to be less and less relevant until and unless you recognize that "the times, they are a-changin'," as Mr. Dylan would say.  Your ideas have failed.  Your actions have failed.  You have damned this country to international hatred, national economic disaster, and total disgrace, both inside and outside this country.  "Loyal opposition" does not mean whiny, stupid, garbage complaints, it means constructive participation in GOOD governing, and sensible commentary when you feel there is something that could be done better.  If you want to have a future in this nation, you need to start moving into the future, stop being stuck in the past.  As to the "bailouts," try to remember who caused the problems and who brought Paulson into the picture to start the great American giveaway to his Wall Street pals - NOT Obama. It was just the final Bush and Co. redistribution of the wealth of America to their personal friends, families, business associates and political donors.

Robin, PA

Keep on dreaming, rickace, you have truly become the minority party,

Tell it to someone else. I'm an independent critical thinker, not a party drone.

it means constructive participation in GOOD governing

Good governing? You mean like this?

As to the "bailouts," try to remember who caused the problems and who brought Paulson into the picture to start the great American giveaway to his Wall Street pals - NOT Obama

The bailouts were enacted by Congress, in which the Democrats hold a majority. It seems they have pals on Wall Street too.

BTW Bob Dylan is overrated. His singing voice is pitiful and as a lyricist he can't hold a candle to Keith Reid.

The RNC is putting the heat on Obama!

Talk about passive-aggressive behavior....What the Hell has the RNC been doing in the past 8 yrs...sleeping & dreaming?

• When in  REALITY shows it's been a nightmare.

michigan mark, was it the  6 years of  growth and prosperity or the last 2 years that has been a nightmare for you? Those of us that are wide awake would like to know.

righofcenter your still a sleeping - (8 years of bush) - 2 wars , Thousands killed, stock market below when bush took over, 7 TRILLION dollars deeper in debt, Housing disaster, employment going down, debt going up, greatest move ever to socialism, in a recession, etc. TIME for a WAKE-UP-CALL rightof center.

Rightofcenter... in response to your comment

...I understand where you're going w/ your comment...but it's not valid....only to prove some in the RNC are delusional.

Easymoney65...Thank you for  putting reality into the conversation.  Facts are facts...and they are appreciated.

Hey Republicans, You had your chance. You blew it. Now go away, or we will vote more of you out in the next election.

Yes because so many democrats sat quietly during the GWB administration.

easymoney and michiganmark- wars started when we were attacked-remember 9/11/01? Before you say it- Iraq is part of the war on terror. The financial problems stem from long standing socialist policy's and Dem's obstructing reform proposed by the President and other republicans. I'm not foolish enough to paint the all republicans Lilly white, but to say that the problems we have now are all Bush's fault is way to simplistic and a very shallow attempt at re-writing recent history. Hate republicans all you want but I'm not going to sit quietly by when you guys sling around a bunch of blatant falsehoods. Seems to be a recurrent theme today.

I agree with posts above that we need a minimum two-party system for checks and balances to be a democracy. I also agree that the "check" part should be constructive instead of more of the same fear-mongering propaganda we've endured from the RNC to date. And I agree that before Republicans get into a tizzy they should remember the last eight years of scandals too numerous to list and take care not to throw stones when they live in a glass house.

In regard to the article, of course no one is perfect and no President can make all the people happy all of the time. The first assertion that Bush should have enjoyed a honeymoon period is nonsense. The 2000 election was so unethical, narrow, and controversial there is no comparison to the way Obama has won.

The second assertion that Obama is not being bipartisan also is laughable. He is moving to the center in many ways, including keeping the Pentagon "as is" for the time being -- though he has a mandate and doesn't have to if he doesn't want to. You would never see Republicans do these things if they won an election the way the Dems have.

And I don't know how the RNC defines "change" but I don't think it means appointing a bunch of inexperienced people no one has heard of. The problems our nation is facing require the kind of people Obama is appointing. Come on, we all know the RNC would criticize Obama no matter what he did.

But ultimately, if the new administration performs well, Americans won't care what the RNC claims, and if their hyperbole is too negative, Republicans will remain a minority Party.

miss iffy, good job keeping your guy in line and keeping his promises over the last eight years. I guess we can all expect the same  attentivness as this last admin, thanks for keeping an eye on things!

Easy Money you seem to want to blame George Bush and the REpublicans for everything as to the War in Iraq.  The "Iraq Resolution" and "Iraq War Resolution" are popular names for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 which was a bi-partisan vote for this resolution.  Get your facts straight.

As far as the Economy you Bush Haters seem to forget that the Bush Administration and the Republican Party warned about the the Sub-Prime mess a couple of years ago.  But during the hearings for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac your buddies Barney Franks, Chris Dodd and Maxine Waters pitched a fit saying that there wer no problems with these organizations.  They lauded the leadership and claimed that all the problems noted (which we know today were true) were false claims.  Franks even stated playing the race card.  Dodd would never go against Fannie or Freddie since they gave him more money than any other politician.  All the while we have Maxine Waters and Acorn threatening the Financial industries, pressuring them to make more loans to people who could not afford them and telling them not to foreclose on deadbeats who had stopped paying their mortgages. 

Brian - I truly hope that you are either grammatically challenged or woefully ignorant of the political process in this country, because the alternative is frightful.

Obama WON the presidential election.  He was ELECTED.  There will be no recount.  There will be no challenge.  There are no legal grounds to prohibit him from bein innaugurated on Jan. 20th.  HOWEVER, IF you are saying his becoming president "hopefully will never occur" - I question whether you are one of the loony toons who are actively plotting against our next president.  I PRAY that I am wrong about you, and I HOPE that you have common sense to explain yourself.

This is a rediculous article.  Their not unhappy, they all have a job, they all have health care, they are all secure, eat well, play well, and don't worry about tomorrow.

It's one party...........the congressional party of power and wealth.

It's the american citizen who is truly divided, it keeps them where they are.

The electoral college will give the votes 12/15/2008.  They have not done so yet.  That is the political process.  I have reasonable doubts about the ability of Obama to take the oath of office for the President of the United States!

The USSC will have a meeting about the merits of the claim in Berg Versus Obama soon.  The electorial process in this country relies on the courts now more than ever.  Al Frankin.

Our founding fathers had very deep and hateful elections.  We survived.  By the way the primary purpose of the President of the United States is to perpetuate the Presidency.  George Walker Bush did that.  I am concerned that Obama will not be able to accomplish that task! 

Brian-keep smoking whatevere you are smoking. It obviously works well. By the way when your head is clear you may want to check the word "democracy" in a dictionary.

No challenge.  Attack.  Lame.  I, just like in the Obama lawsuit are considered better than you because you did not respond properly.

Easy Money....The vote authorizing the iraq war....was approved by a DEMOCRATIC CONTROLLED US SENATE...... amazing you are so ignorant you dont realize this.....

GOP lost control of the senate  before 911.....when  Jim Jeffords switching to voting with the dems...gave dems control of the senate...in fact that same DEM controlled senate....approved the Patriot act.....

Certain things really do not deserve a response. Like the desire on your part, Brian, for Obama not to become president. My only response is amusement.

I asked you to check the word democracy. I think your head hasn't been clear enough, so I'll make it easy for you: the millions who voted for Obama count more than you personally. 

You await your chance in four years. That's how it works.

Ahh..Chargerguy..there he is. Ok bud...get yer fact straight ..ONCE AGAIN. The adoption of the resolution to War in Iraq was voted on when the Repubs still controlled congress.; Where do you come up with your crap? Do you just make it up as you go along?
And as far as the GOP and its opinions..its fine for the opposing party to have their say..in fact it is an equl time gentlemans agreement in a way. However, to constantly slam from the get go , when this country is in such a mess is absolutely ridiculous and does not help with anything. The Dems did not bash W half that much..especially before he even took office. The fact that there was so much turmoil due to a shady election was the only thing the Dems moaned about. You guys are really stretching here. How about we give it a chance. The one thing that is certain, and none of you can argue is, this country is in the crapper right now. W was an idiot and a liar and surrounded himself with folks of the same character as him..that being no character at all. The congress has been controlled by the right wing for 12 of the last 14 years..so who is to blame. It certainly is not Obama.
So I think it would be in the best interest of this country AND the GOP to have a more wait and see attitude. You cant do anything about it and to @!$%# and throw stones right now is certainly not going to help the situation we find ourselves in right now. And to anyone really paying attention, the nominations Obama is lining up right now are not left wing theocrats..much unlike the right wing bulldogs that W pulled out of the GOP antiques closet.

I just hope they continue to display the morals and tactics they have in the election. How many in prison for corruption now? Attacks based soley on their own fears? They're a laughing stock and they're not bright enough to get it! A few more leaked conference calls demonstrating to the religious right the contempt the republican leadership has for them, a few more "wide stanced" family values, maybe throw in another congressman trying to turn the "page" with solicitous emails, and perhaps another candidate with a single digit IQ on the brink of senility! Maybe DeLay will be sentenced in Oct. 2010!

Yup, President Barak Obama better listen to the dolts the people just threw out of the Presidency, the Senate, and the House, or they're gonna sic Sarah Baracuda on him, YOU BETCHA!!!!

Brian-657672

By the way the primary purpose of the President of the United States is to perpetuate the Presidency.

Really now? That's not what the Constitution says it is.

DC you make seem that it was only Republican voted for the war.  Maybe you need to get your facts straight.

A list of those who voted for the war 

YEAs ---77

Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

DC SMITH... I see you need educating.....

May 24, 2001 Posted: 9:48 a.m. EDT (1348 GMT)

-- Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont left the Republican Party as expected Thursday, becoming an independent and throwing control of the Senate to the Democratic Party for the first time since 1994. ,,,, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/24/jeffords.senate/

Why do you think DEMOCRATE  SENATOR TOM DASCHLE was Leader of the SENATE from June 6th of 2001 until Jan 3 2003.....BECAUSE THE DEMS had control of the senate  you dolt.

Iraq war resolution was October 2002.......when the dems controlled the senate.. dems then lost majority in mid term elections of NOV 2002.....

Gop took back Control of the senate...Jan 2003...

You can choose to be ignorant and think..GOP controlled  all the branches of govt for the last 8 years....or you can choose to believe  GOP controlled the senate when IRAQ war voted on.... willful ignorance  seems to be a speciality of all the dems who post on Newsvine...

or you can choose to recognize the fact that  DEMS had the power to stop IRAQ war if they wanted....but instead over half of the the DEM controlled senate including, Hillary, Daschle, Kerry, Lieberman....voted with GW and the GOP.

Fact is DEMS controlled both or at least 1 of the houses of congresses for nearly half the time GW been in office.....

Cite a fact and prove me wrong....

The job of the Republicans is to do what their constituents want and is in the best interest of this entire nation.  It is NOT TO DO ANYTHING THEY CAN TO TAKE BACK POWER!!!

That is the problem with the RNC.  They are so blinded by power and indignation.

All you who repeat the lines of 'following Obama blindly' don't even know how blindly you have been following the Republicans without any question.  Just keep thinking the Democrats are the enemy and not even notice the rest of the world is where to turn your attention.

I frankly will not vote for any Republican who takes the tactic of being there simply to go against the Democrat president. If you can't get along and progress the interest of THE AMERICAN PEOPLE and not your PARTY, then you should resign or sit down and shut up.

"Before saying Obama lied you must first admit to the lies of this outgoing complete joke of an administration."

Why?

One administration did a poor job, so that excuses making a poor choice with regards to the replacement?  Obama lied and mislead many times, that has nothing to do with Bush and nobody needs to admit Bush did anything to make the fully credible claim against Obama being a decent choice as President.  Obama's business proposals are just an expansion upon Bush's proposals that have been some of the most liberal we've seen in over forty years.  World record corporate taxation, US record income taxation (even with the so-called tax breaks), business charges left and right...people blamed Republicans while a Democrat (from every business perspective) who simply called himself a Republican took us downhill.  Obama lied, it's not exactly hard to show the many times this was done, and of course this makes sense with him being nothing more than another Bush who happens to call himself a Democrat.  Before saying Obama lied you have to say something about someone else?  Sorry, but did you actually think about that statement before writing it down?  Might as well say that before you claim OJ is guilty, you MUST admit that some other random guy is also guilty of a crime.  One guy doing one thing has nothing to do with some unrelated individual doing something else.  Obama lied, while Bush is an idiot anyone can still credibly say that Obama lied without needing to mention a single word about Bush.  They're two separate individuals (while still being politically too close to the same to make the next four years what it should be).

Right on, tell the 3 people left in the GOP to quiet down. 

You'd think you could let the man start his job before it gets critisized. 

You could look at this the same as you do with any business.  The change in the way a business is run never happens until there is a change in ownership.  It is not the employees and managers that make the changes they only impelement the changes as directed by the new owner.

And truly it is laughable for the GOP to accuse anyone of being a divider.  They are standing in what is left of a shattered glass house still holding stones.  They learned nothing from this last failed campaign.

On the contrar now the republicans can do to the Dems what the Dems did to Bush for the last eight years..if you don't like it then bury your head in the sand.....thats politics or have you not read your history books ( sorry forgot I was talking to a Dem silly me)........As far as Obama offering change does not every one realize the only change he has to offer is the color of his skin...sorry to say Washington swings one way or the other..thats just the way it is, the way it always has been. America you have now put a man in office that is going to reverse all the good that Bush did as far as   the right to life...which by the way is our first right.......so for you pro lifers out there now is the time to put your money where your mouth is and support the NRL. This man has a deplorable record when it comes to prolife issues and is possibly in the pocket of planned parenthood which was a very racist organization to eliminate the blacks, and it's sort of ironic that he's been co-opted by them.What an unbelievably bitter irony that the first Aferican-American elected President would break bread and be embraced by an organization whose biggest growth market is pregnant African American women.

The PE hasn't even started his job yet and people are sure he'll screw up.  If your crystal ball is that accurate, could you tell me next week's lotto numbers?

Nice information, charter guy. I was about to jump up and defend you about dem controlled senate in 2001, but you beat me to it.

"This resulted in the Democrats winning control of the Senate for only 17 days, since Al Gore was still Vice President and President of the Senate. But the Republicans won control the chamber with the tie-breaking vote of the new Vice President Richard B. Cheney on January 20th. The small Republican Majority would last until May 24, 2001 when Republican Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont left the Republican Party and became an Independent who chose to caucus with the Democrats. The Republicans won back the Senate in the 2002 Midterm elections.

We don't live in democracy.  We live in a democratic republic.  Please at least get that much straight.

"All the RNC is saying is that since the media will not do their job as a watch dog for gov. abuse from the Obama administration,they will assume that roll as well. What's wrong with that lefties? Afraid of a little scrutiny? It's not like we are doing what you guys did with Bush and try to destroy by any means possible anyone that was connected to his administration on a 24/7/365 basis." 

You must not have been around during Clinton's administration, were you?  $40 million and five years spent by a partisan investigator with orders to look at everything he could and find what he can?  I wonder what we would find on Bush and Co if that were to happen to him.  Just looking into The Carlysle Group, Blackwater, and Haliburton would be enough to indict every major player in the Republican party from the last 20 years. 

"...Try to distroy anyone connected to his administration..."?   You mean someone like Valerie Plame, who was outed by Cheney because her husband proved the reasons Bush gave for going to war were all lies?  Or the countless people who were called unpatriotic and unamerican for opposing Bush? 

You need to get your

ginico,

A large thank you.     Beautifully put.

   We can only hope a viable Republican party that has ideas that do work will emerege. I look for moderates to take back control of their party in the near future.

Do you know who was in control with majority vote?

In the house and the senate???  57% Democrat.

What Do Barack Obama Voters Know?

How Obama Got Elected - If you've spent more than 30 seconds on You Tube you probably noticed that the overwhelming majority of Obama voters, and by overwhelming majority I mean 99%, think that Sarah Palin is a dumb, corrupt, expletive. They rarely say anything thoughtful, but they think Palin is the one who is an idiot. They portray Sarah Palin as a know-nothing without a grasp of basic facts, let alone a deep understanding of complex issues. Now there is a poll that shows how much Obama voters actually know and the results are absolutely shocking.

John Zogby polled 512 Barack Obama voters from 11/13/2008 to 11/15/2008. 55% of the Obama voters polled were college graduates and 80% have attended some college. Zogby asked them 12 multiple choice questions about the candidates. A disturbing 0.5% were able to answer all 12 questions correctly. 0.5%. That means 99.5% of Obama voters have less general knowledge than Sarah Palin which Im sure will make liberals heads explode.

Here are some of the highlights:

* 57% did NOT know the Democrats control congress, they had a 50/50 chance.

* 72% did NOT know Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism.

* 82% did NOT know that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot.

* 88% did NOT know that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket.

* 56% did NOT know that Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground.

There is now more proof than ever that journalism is dead in America.

the pendulum will always keep swinging.  its the dems turn now but the repubs will come back.  I love the rhetoric now that the republicans are just done and dead.  now that the dems are in power, they will start getting blame when things don't work.  i know bush will be blamed for a while but after a time, the dems policies will take effect... and then the country will vote them out as well because the blame will lie with them. 

history is a teacher if you choose to listen to it.

Rockey road,  chances are the the McCain voters probably wouldn't have known those answers either.  So what's your point?

Obama voters did not want to know the facts. All they could say was "Change".  When you ask one to explain what was going to "Change" they could not answer.  Rather scary when you think about it.  People went out and voted for a President and did not have a clue what he stood for other than "Change". 

Please note that John Zogby also predicted that Kerry would win against bush.

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

This is not to say that he cannot be listened to at all.  It is just a instance of inaccurate polling.

Also while you list the correct percentages on the polls you changed the meaning of the questions.  This is similiar to when a certain newspaper published:

"Vast majority wants death penalty for drug sellers."

The actual question was "Should it be possible that drug sellers that sell drugs to our children be considered for captial punishment based on the direct result of thier sales?".

That not a defence of drug selling.  It's just that the published statement is less that completly factual.

You posts for all it's percentages proves nothing as you have interjected you opinion into the staticits.

Your either a poltical sheep repeating something or a political divider trying to split people up.  Hardline conservative, hardline liberals, and snake oil salesmen tend to use similiar tactics.

* 57% did NOT know the Democrats control congress, they had a 50/50 chance.

How many McCain supporters would have answered correctly? 

* 72% did NOT know Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism.

First, this happened 20 years ago (much like McCain's ethics issue).  Second, he didn't do anything illegal.  He quit the campaign because of accusations.  However, he was later cleared by the Delaware Supreme Court's Board of Professional Responsibility.

* 82% did NOT know that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot.

He did not win the election, just a spot on the ballot.  His opponent's petitions were declared invalid by the election board.  Why should they have been allowed on the ballot?

* 88% did NOT know that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket.

Maybe that's because the statement was taken out of content as an 11th hour attempt to smear Obama. 

* 56% did NOT know that Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground.

It's tough to know something that isn't true.  This is likely the most frequently propagated lie put out by the GOP. 

The Zogby poll was a blatantly partisan push poll bought and paid for by one of the GOP sore losers.

What Do Barack Obama Voters Know?

They don't know enough to impress me.

Another little-known tidbit about our president-elect and his Washington cabal:

Obama and his appointed chief-of-staff and sec-state were knee-deep in the Fannie/Freddie corruption and subsequent meltdown.

Over the span of his career, Obama ranks No. 2 in campaign donations from Fannie and Freddie, taking over $125,000. Dodd, head of the Senate Banking panel, is tops at $165,000. Clinton, ranked 12th, has collected $75,000.

Clinton administration official Jamie Gorelick also got taken care of by the Fannie-Freddie circle. So did top Clinton aide Rahm Emanuel, among others.

Congressional graft is about to metastasize into the White House.

Read the series of IBD articles and then reflect upon what Democrats have been doing while no one was watching them: enriching themselves and their cronies in the executive offices of Fannie and Freddie at the people's expense.

Rickace - Take a look at all the money McCain's campaign head got from Freddie - I think it was $15,000 a month for several years, AND, his business also got BIG BUCKS to keep regulation out of the Freddies.  You need to look at all the connections, not only those that support your candidate.  There is enough blame to go around to pretty much everyone in politics, so please, face the facts.  Your guy had much more reason to keep them free of regulation than pretty much anyone else.

Robin, PA

McCain wasn't my guy. I didn't vote.  And yes some GOP members rode the gravy train too. Unfortunately they will get away without being held accountable as well.

Obama however just won a seat in the Oval Office, so perhaps it's you who needs to face the facts. Read those IBD articles I linked in #2.11, they're a real eye-opener.

There is voter fraud.  There were millions of people that voted for McCain.  Now we get to here for the first time in my adult life I am proud to be an American.  Good riddance to these anti-American dividers.

It's the "controlled everything" that was the strength and weakness of the Republican party - strength, as in, overbearing and heavy-handed at times, weakness in that they were full of themselves and blinded to some realities. It's a common mistake and the Dems are not immune. The Republicans pandered to their interest groups and no doubt, Dems will, too. Human nature.

We saw what happened when one party ruled both the White House and Congress. We should be somewhat leery about what is coming while being open to the possibility that things will turn out OK.

The outgoing administration botched things terribly - no escaping that reality.

My concern is that, while we heard 'change' chanted like a mantra, we are seeing many recognizable faces. On the one hand, it's smart because they DO have the experience; on the other, it is reliance on old guard, a plain and simple contradiction. It's that contradiction that we need to watch.

The Democratic Party has a lot of proven talent. We knew that. We ignored it.

The new administration has an opportunity to change the 'stayed' course and make improvements, but if it starts going off-track, there's no reason for the Republicans (and Democrats, quite frankly) not to raise the question - if fact, it would be their collective responsibility to do so.

Our responsibility is to watch carefully, analyze, and if we see things going in another wrong direction, we need to step up, discard that 'benefit of the doubt' which perpetuated the last fiasco, and use our votes wisely.

I was actually thinking we should give Obama a chance--wait and see what new, bright young idealists he might bring to his administration to really change things (though I admittedly did not vote for him).  He got off on the wrong foot when he appointed as chief of staff the chief legal counsel for FM and FM who is up to his neck in slime over the whole sub-prime mortgage mess started by Carter, upped by Clinton and here we are today with our whole financial system collapsing and he appionts not a new man with new ideas or a bi-partisan person who actually understands Macro-economics and knows "what makes jobs come and what makes jobs go" like Mitt Romney.  No, Obama totally lost my confidence (and obviously that of Wall Street which is the glue holding our economy together--in a 1200 point free fall since Obama's election) with the Rohm appointment.

Now seeing all the rest of the old and very sullied Clintonistas back in the Obama cabinet he has lost all respect and  I for one (and even many of my D friends who are so dissolusioned by his early actions) will be putting the heat on him every way we can!  He earned it.  He deserves it.  Let's make sure he gets it.

Change!  The only change I want now is a solvent economy which we won't get by looking to the folks who profitted and continue to profit from destroying it--ACORN, Obama and the rest of the Black Caucus, Freddie and Fannie and their hucksters like Rohm, Clinton, Carter and the rest of those who sold the Americans who couldn't afford homes an empty dream and now the whole world is paying for it.

Ginico,

Dems controlled the US senate from  about Mid 2001 until Jan 2003....Sen Jim Jeffords swtiched to voting with dems  giving dems majority in the senate....TOM DASCHLE was the dem majority leader.  ALso, Dems have had control of both houses of congress  the last 2 years.

So for nearly half of GW presidency..dems have controlled 1 or both houses of congress

WAS DEM CONTROLLED SENATE THAT APPROVED IRAQ WAR AND THE PATRIOT ACT!

WHen you say that for the last 8 years Republicans have controlled everything...you show your ignorance of reality.

No wonder you vote DEM....you have no idea whats really going on...more then likely you read the headlines...watch OLBERMAN and listen to AIR AMERICA....but your so brainwashed you don't know DEMS have controlled house and senate for last 2 years and controlled Senate for most of GW first two years in office....your the perfect..OBAMA voter...ignorant and voting on bumper stickers  what your FED...

Wrong Chargerguy...to say that the Dems controlled the senate is a bit of a stretch. That is to say that even if they did have a slight edge with the supposed voting of Jeffords, the House has been controlled by the Repubs for 12 of the last 14 years..this includes the time when the Iraq debacle was approved. You keep repeating this but dont acknowledge the fact that the Senate alone does not fix policy.
And in all actuality, the vote of approval for the Iraq crap was triggered by lies..lies that the W administration knew about. Anyone that voted for the war (which Obama did not) was fed a bunch of crap. And, before you go all balistic and give me a bunch of meaningless chatter about where the 'intelligience' came from, even after W's BS about WMA's was found to be untrue, he and his Uncle Dick continued to spew lies to keep up the cry for war. That, along with a campain of fear to keep the more intelligient masses in line.

Arad did you know that Zogby is a registered Democrat?

Dems controlled the senate when IRAQ war resplution passed.  You can spin all you want.   TOM DASCHLE was the leader of the senate and dems had all the committee chairmanships.

Also, IRAQ had the capability to use chemicals weapons...how do I know because they used them in the 1980's and early 1990's.

and  IRAQ under saddam was sponsor of Terror...how do i know?  Clinton Admin said so... was Clinton admin who put them on the list of nations that sponsor terror. Might of had something to do with ABU NIDAL operating out of IRAQ

It is important to continually question the ideas and actions of ALL elected officails.  Don't be afraid of criticism and do not blindly follow anyone even if they are the leader of your party of choice. 

I think it is great that the republicans criticize Obama.  That is exactly what they should do if they believe in something. 

If you believe something voice it outloud.  Have your own ideas and do not fear the opposition.  Openly listening to opposing ideas will help you better understand all issues and if you don't change your mind after a well argued discussion then your beliefs are even more sound. 

John Zogby said in a statement defending the poll: “We reject the notion that this was a push poll because it very simply wasn't. … In this case, the respondents were given a full range of responses and were not pressured or influenced to respond in one way or another. This poll was not designed to hurt anyone, which is obvious as it was conducted after the election.”

Zogby told Politico in a telephone interview that the volume of reaction was in the top 10 percent he had received to his 24 years of polling.

other questions in the poll were who said "I've just finished campaigning in 57 states." Most responses said "Sarah Palin". It was in fact Obama. (btw, counting DC and US territories, there are what could be considered 56 states.)

Or, who said "I can see russia from my house, so I have foreign policy experience." Most responses said palin, but she never said that. Tina Fey did.

This was random sampling not handpicked low iq democratic voters. It's actually scary, regardless who they'd vote for, that some voters are so ill informed. A govt class or IQ test for potential voters would be a great idea IMO.

Also, homeless people shouldn't be able to use a park bench as their home address and get paid by acorn to register as voter.

70 IQ...yeah you know what the hell you're talking about.  Your statement can just as easily be used to insult the ignorant masses that voted for the walking calamity that is GW Bush.  And "RichardHatesLeftWingWackos" says the right wing wacko.  Talk about a case of the sh!t calling the shovel dirty.

RichardHatesLeftWingWackos

If you consider Obama and Biden "left wing wackos (sic)," I imagine that even James Dobson is a little too left for your tastes.  That 70 I.Q. comment says it all.  Obama graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law School, summa cum laude.  If he did all of that on an I.Q. of 70, I'm truly amazed.  And since he carried the majority of college educated voters, I guess that means that a 70 I.Q. get you through college today.

Pathetic doesn't begin to describe the inanity of your comment.

Bush's IQ was well below 100.

alec,

The way I read Richards statement, he does not call Obama's I.Q. into question.  Instead it was the I.Q. of his followers and the people that voted for him.  I see you are one of them.  His followers that is.

 Grace, for the past 8 years you and your left wingers have done is spew "Hate Bush"  You have blamed him for everthing deservingly or not.  Now you want everyone to back off Obama. 

Salem what reference or fact do you use to back up your claim of George Bush's IQ?

we want the bush supporters to acknowledge what their president has done to the country and allow a new person  time to atleast make a mistake and not subject the rest of us with your constant descriptions of OBAMA's failure Bush had eight years of constant blunders and you want to criticize a person who has made one Presidential Decision  so to the Bush supporters can the man get into office first

Just because Obama duped the large 70 IQ group does not really constute a meaningful victory.

Are you implying that a large number of McCain/Palin supporters were tricked into voting for Obama?  When you used the descriptor '70-IQ group' it was obvious that you were talking about the Republican base.

Even the dummies will wake up after an anal screwing on finances and freedoms.

Obviously that is not true.  Even after eight years of Bush people still voted Republican.

I guess the bush supporting like it in the A** with no  lube LOL

this comment sounds familiar - but it should be from 2000.  This article correctly states what alot of Americans don't remember from 2000.  The DEMOCRATS refused to accept George W as OUR LEGITIMATE President because Al Gore acted like a spoiled brat who couldn't believe he had lost.  The Democrats started the devisive administration by BOYCOTTING meetings with W because they wanted to be sure that W would only get ONE term.  Guess what - IT DIDN'T work.  Bush warned against a recession in his FIRST term and the Democrats told him he was being negative and down playing our "robust" economy.  Obama will be given a chance in Washington that W was NEVER given because the media actually LIKES Obama.

Grace Corcoran

why not try to work with President Elect Obama and Vice President Elect Biden and help get our country back on track.

The country ain't gonna get back on track for a few years no matter what the pubs do. But if they're smart they will oppose every single bill in Congress to spend money foolishly and recklessly on "bailouts" and all the other bullsh*t programs that are increasing the national debt and placing the nation into a precarious position at the worst possible time.

alec_wisner

RichardHatesLeftWingWackos

If you consider Obama and Biden "left wing wackos (sic)," I imagine that even James Dobson is a little too left for your tastes.  That 70 I.Q. comment says it all.  Obama graduated from Columbia and Harvard Law School, summa cum laude.  If he did all of that on an I.Q. of 70, I'm truly amazed.  And since he carried the majority of college educated voters, I guess that means that a 70 I.Q. get you through college today.

I was refering to the followers of Obama, seems demographics back me up in the fact that left leaners have a lower I.Q.. Sorry to hand you the bad news but I only state from facts.

While I know of James Dobsen I don't follow him, not to say he might not have a few good points.

Rush is to far to the left for me as the poor guy has been slipping over the last 8 years.

I am a card carrying member of the Libertarian Party, I have a set of principles that I can not and will not compromise. I could never be a democrat, they belive nothing and stand for less. Republicans for the most part seem to be some kind of whackjob centrist seeking the left. I have little use for them other than keeping democrats from office as lesser offensive fools.

Did you know that last I looked Nancy Pelosi had a 6% approval rating, thats sad for her but I can live with it. It means that there are still some sane folks running around.

Well, this is interesting. Some times the liberals(whenever that became a dirty word) are considered "elitist", at other times, retarded people. Not going into that-I'd like to remind everyone that among whites, those with a college education preferred Obama.(That happened to be the case not just in the general election but also in democratic primaries). Some retards.

The Obama Administration is criminal.  That is why it should not be supported.  Criminals.

Wonderful. The judgment is in-before he even takes office.

Simple fact.....Those people with a 4 or more year continued education overwhelmingly voted for Obama.

Annonymous-682171 and DC Smith

Not going into that-I'd like to remind everyone that among whites, those with a college education preferred Obama.

Simple fact.....Those people with a 4 or more year continued education overwhelmingly voted for Obama.

All that proves is that Obama's professed agenda coincided better with this demographic group than McCain's did, or they got suckered in by Obama's charm, or they just wanted the Republicans out. The conclusion that being educated assisted these voters to come to the inevitable "smart" conclusion that Obama is the better candidate is nonsense.

I guess it makes much more sense, then, to think that McCain's supporters, by and large with less education were smarter.

What was the other hypothesis? That the educateed ones were "suckered"(I'm sure Warren Buffet swallowed it hook, line and sinker). So many educated people?Why couldn't Obama deceive the uneducated people, they tend to be more sophisticated? Not to mention, they would be exactly the ones that would benefit the most from any hypothetical "socialist" policies, so the suggestion that Obama's agenda coincided better with people who were better educated and tended to be higher income is also out.

My conclusion, rickace, is that whomever has a voting record you don't like cannot possibly be smart, no matter what.

DC SMITH... I see you need educating.....

May 24, 2001 Posted: 9:48 a.m. EDT (1348 GMT)

-- Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont left the Republican Party as expected Thursday, becoming an independent and throwing control of the Senate to the Democratic Party for the first time since 1994. ,,,, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/05/24/jeffords.senate/

Why do you think DEMOCRATE  SENATOR TOM DASCHLE was Leader of the SENATE from June 6th of 2001 until Jan 3 2003.....BECAUSE THE DEMS had control of the senate  you dolt.

Iraq war resolution was October 2002.......when the dems controlled the senate.. dems then lost majority in mid term elections of NOV 2002.....

Gop took back Control of the senate...Jan 2003...

You can choose to be ignorant and think..GOP controlled  all the branches of govt for the last 8 years....or you can choose to believe  GOP controlled the senate when IRAQ war voted on.... willful ignorance  seems to be a speciality of all the dems who post on Newsvine...

or you can choose to recognize the fact that  DEMS had the power to stop IRAQ war if they wanted....but instead over half of the the DEM controlled senate including, Hillary, Daschle, Kerry, Lieberman....voted with GW and the GOP.

Fact is DEMS controlled both or at least 1 of the houses of congresses for nearly half the time GW been in office.....

Cite a fact and prove me wrong....

f18jets said:  "for the past 8 years you and your left wingers have done is spew "Hate Bush"  You have blamed him for everthing deservingly or not."

WRONG! For ALL 8 years of Clinton's administration, you right-wingers spewed "Hate Clinton" Everything he did or didn't do was criticized.  And the Republicans practically begged for a full Republican President and Congress.  Even changing a law to allow a sitting president to be sued by a citizen (that means while in office) to further denograde him.   I'm sure other presidents did something similar but we didn't know about it.
Then, when you got what you wanted, your feelings were hurt when ANYONE rightly criticized a policy Bush put forth. Something you and the RNC now think we should do to Obama.  IF ANYONE disagreed with the Bush Doctrine, we were and still are called names and insulted.
So, now right-wingers have turned into right-wing wackos and nuts and you think you DESERVE RESPECT after what you have put this country through?  It is time for all the uneducated, crass, talking heads to get off the air already and stop running this country.  We elect officials to run this country, not you.

That's right, I care more for my country than any party. I wish I could say the same for some of the people here or out in the USA. WE are in trouble.

The Democrats starting with Carter and his inane pushing of people into homes they couldn't afford started the decline.  Clinton jumped on the band wagon and expanded the Act pushing banks to loan to poor folks in the redlined areas--sounds good on the surface, but these poor people hadn't a chance of repaying them--subprime loans.  Add the FM and FM purchase of worthless paper (from folks who couldn't/wouldn't pay their mortgages) basically hiding these worthless assets and enter ACORN pushing even more folks to take out loans they couldn't afford and the black caucus (mostly D) absolutely shouting down any attempt to put firmer restrictions and ovsight on FM and FM and you have the disaster we are in today--so Obama appoints first of all Emanuel--chief legal counsel to these failed institutions.  The Republicans only flaw was not having the power the last couple of years to enforce Pres. Bush's constant request for more oversight of FM and FM.  Check the record.  You can see the Black Caucus shouting down an investigator and saying Freddie and Fannie were fine a short time ago--also on You Tube is a meeting with FM where the leader of that organization said the Black Caucus is "family."  Collusion and subterfuge--black caucus, ACORN and Democrat Presidential style put us in this mess.  Read your history and it is right there in front of your eyes.  The house of cards came down at the end of Bush's term, but he had very little to do with any of it.  It should be laid at the feet of Carter, Clinton, ACORN, Black Caucus, FM and FM!

Rhom Emanuel was a part of the problem--it is not change to get someone who caused the mess and who is part of the old system.  THIS, former Senator Obama is not change.

to lay deregulation of the home loan industry solely at the feet of Democrats is the height of partisan finger pointing.  The deregulation of this industry did not occur in a vacuum, indeed it is only a small part of an ongoing liberalization of our economy has been going on since the end of Great Depression.  Although Clinton is and was a economic liberal he is not the beginning nor the end of this process.  Learn a little more about our political/economic history and such partisan jabs will become fewer and further between.

I know that your I.Q. must be well above 70, but you might use a dictionary to correct your inability to spell properly.  As for "toothless southern moron(s)," just remember the party affiliation of Southern Congressman and the party affiliation of the person they cast their electoral votes for President for.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when at first we start to hurl venom without thinking through the consequences of our statements in a logical discussion with intelligent people.  [My paraphrase.]

As usual, resorting to ignorant , hateful name calling. Typical.

Richard, the creater of the legislation that caused the Fannie and Freddie fiasco by removing regulations in the financial sector was Phil (nation of whiners/mental recession) Gramm, a Republican. Did the Dems have a part in all this? 'You betcha' they did, but equally guilty are the Republicans. There is plenty of blame to go around, but for some reason Republicans are incapable of accepting any responsibility for what they do. Must be that less than 70IQ.

And before you start, the failed legislation in 2003 and 2005 that was designed to deal with Fannie and Freddie took place during a time Republicans controlled the executive branch and both the congress and the senate. Republicans get to own those two failures because it happened on your watch.

You lost the election(s); get over it, and if you can't work with the rest of us to get the country moving in the right direction, please crawl back under your rock for at least another two years. Your disgruntled sniping is not productive.

storm  from where i sit the dems turned the whole thing into repubs fault.  pelosi applauded frank on his leadership even though he is part of the cause.  there is penty of blame to go around for both parties but the dems really are taking no responsibility in any of this.

look at how clinton changed the CRA.  that lead to a lot of sub prime lending.  he wanted everyone to have a home (bush just continued it).  both parties had a huge hand but they only want to blame each other.  they both need to stand up a little more and take responsibility

Heres what kills me they say this started with Carter well wouldnt all or most of the homes that were bought during this time period be paid by now   point 2 arent the homes that are being foreclosed on the homes of people who are in homes costing about 400000 when they could affford only 150000 so how is this not Bushs fault when these homes were purchased in last 8years  point 3 even if it were clinton what are killing the people are adjustable loans where they came in at one price and after a couple of years the price fluctuates with the market again within a couple of years Bush problem so we are tired of people saying it started way back when, when clearly the problem is recent please stop being parrots and use your brains  and my last point is why in the hell is gas falling like it is wher i live gas is now 1.67  a gallon two months ago 4.09   why the hell did it ever get so high and why the hell did it drop over two dollars in 2months youre buddy Bush i could go on and  on

Um, rarddogg - It's a fact that the mess started with Carter.  That is not an opinion.  Also, basically everything Miss Iffy said in post 4.1 is fact; not opinion.  Its not really your fault you didn't know.  You have been led like the rest of the dems by a liberal media rather than taking the initiative to read history.  

The government mess, however, is not solely the fault of dems, Republicans did little to nothing to effectively stop the disaster so the way I look at it, both parties dropped the ball.  Both parties have both good points and bad points.  There are no real conservatives (or none that are standing out) even in the political scene right now.  I hate to blow it to you but there also are no real good dems out there either.  Obama said one word; change.  Nobody in the media gave facts about who he is or even questioned what was meant by change.  The only thing that was rammed down the throats of Americans was that change meant something better than what we have.  

We can only pray that Obama, with his lack of experience and several corrupt members in his staff, can bring about truly good change.  I don't want America to go down any further than what it is right now and I don't think anybody in this discussion would.  As Americans, we have to at least question bad decisions, though, don't you agree?

tucker-1

Did anyone expect anything different from the Repig's?

salem1692

As usual, resorting to ignorant , hateful name calling. Typical.

Agreed salem1962.

The CRA was enacted in 1977 under Carter, that's true enough. What is not true is what the CRA does. It does not force lenders to lend money to unqualified borrowers. It does require that a qualified borrower not be rejected because of race. The keyword there is qualified. Furthermore, CRA does not apply to private mortgage companies, the holders of over 90% of subprime mortgages. (And remember the term subprime applies to those borrowers who normally would not qualify for a prime mortgage loan.)

It is not Democrats, liberals or the so-called 'liberal' media that misleads. It is Rovian Republicans who take advice from HItler himself when he advised to go ahead and lie to the people. Just keep telling the lie over and over and soon enough people will believe it. Apparently GOP Rules is an excellent example of how well this works.

The reason  why i supported OBAMA,  he ran on a platform you could understand and identify thats why, builiding the infrastucture, green jobs, new energy plan, education, ending the war not CHANGE, CHANGE was gonna happen either way but at least with OBAMA we have the HOPE of something changing remember MCCAIN sided with Bush 90 percent of time, so while i am not naieve  enough to not understand that at the end of the day they are politicians and most support themselves not the people i can only hope which is something i havent had for 8 years that we can become a SHINING BEACON OF HOPE like we used to be   BUT I WILL WAIT TO SEE WHAT YOURE REASONS WERE FOR VOTING FOR MCCAIN

StormAZ100 - The liberal media has already admitted to being one-sided.  Too late to argue that they were fair during this election.  We now have 4 years to realize how gullible people were.  If you think it will get better due to anything an inexperienced person such as Obama will do, you are going to be very disappointed.  He is not the messiah the brainwashed dems have made him out to be.  He is a person who (look up the record) cannot make decisions.  He is a person who (again, on record) hung out and got his start with a terrorist.  He is a person who (on record) spent 20 years of his life agreeing with a very racist preacher (if he didn't agree, he's then hypocritical for staying in the church).  He has on record (notice the trend, on record) said he will bankrupt the coal industry.  He has on record said he wants to distribute the wealth.  Sorry if you dems want to support a bunch of adult babies who cannot work while at the same time killing real babies.  I don't wanna give my money to those who didn't give working a chance.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.  I truly want Obama to succeed but I'm not brainwashed enough to believe his message.  I want to give Obama a fair shot but I admit I am having a hard time believing the message he speaks when his actions can't be disputed.

rarddogg - Sadly, the only reason I voted McCain at all was because I believe he is the lesser of the evils.  McCain is not a real conservative.  McCain did have a lot of good points but he also had bad points.  I liked the fact that McCain had a history of serving his country.  I also liked the fact that he had a proven track record of going against both parties at times to do what he felt was right.  I didn't, however, believe all of his decisions made sense.  I am one who liked his VP choice but don't like the way she was coached.  She made a lot of good change in Alaska and could have been a good asset.  Palin got tore up by the liberal media (yep, they admitted that later so don't try and dispute it).  She got treated very unfairly and yet she stood her ground.  Obama acts like he's about 8 (I have an 8-year-old so can say for sure, same act) whenever he gets asked a question he was not expecting.  Obama got treated like royalty and was never questioned about anything.  When McCain asked legitimate questions, everybody in the media called it mudslinging. 

Nope, I was not a big McCain fan.  I just wanted the lesser of the evils.

Freddie and Fannie don't even make loans, they back the loans that banks make. Not one bank was forced to make a loan to anyone if they knew the person could not repay it and they did it anyway, it was stupid. PLEASE, if you really think a few loans given to people who eventually lead to default is the reason for the economic mess we have, I am here to tell you that isn't the case. Banks and mortgage companies bought and sold bundled mortgages to make a profit not knowing the real value of the properties. They were selling paper back and forth over and over for profit. When you buy and sell pieces of paper and not real goods and service, an economy can not sustain itself. Geesh, less than %2 percent of all American home go into default, yet you people still want to say that is the reason our economy is in the tank. I will tell you why it is, no jobs with livable wages, health care that very few can afford, very little manufacturing jobs, all these leave less and less Americans spending money on things other than the bare necessities. That leaves lee people able to afford the goods and services that would keep money flowing through the economy.

StormAZ100

Richard, the creater of the legislation that caused the Fannie and Freddie fiasco by removing regulations in the financial sector was Phil (nation of whiners/mental recession) Gramm, a Republican. Did the Dems have a part in all this? 'You betcha' they did, but equally guilty are the Republicans.

3 years ago that sorry old coot McCain tried to do somthing about the Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac problems. He was stopped in his tracks by the democrats. Obama was and still is part of the problem. Now stil there in denial with your fingers in your ears and over your eyes screaming LALALALALALALALALA!!!

Sorry but it's the truth.

Gullible, GOP Rules? Are you serious. The gullability of this electorate was never revealed so bright as when they gave W another 4 years.

FOR years, ACORN had combined manipulation of the CRA with intimidation-protest tactics to force banks to lower credit standards. Its crusade, with help from Democrats in Congress, to push these high-risk "subprime" loans on banks is at the root of today's economic meltdown

ACORN's Democratic friends in Congress moved to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to dispense with normal credit standards. Throughout the early '90s, they imposed ever-increasing subprime-lending quotas on Fannie and Freddie.

DC Smith - I think that when people gave Bush an additional four years it was mainly because he had the experience needed to keep America safe.  It was really not that people were gullible so much.  It was more a vote of necessity (or at least that is the way it seemed at the time).  

I say people were gullible for voting Obama because the media (remember, they have admitted this now) built Obama up to be a messiah.  Obama's lack of experience would have been a major issue had he been a Republican.  All of Obama's poor choices would have been amplified and thrown in our faces had he been a Republican.  

Obama promised things that he could never possibly deliver and the media treated the promises as facts rather than just empty promises.  Obama preached change yet the media never even questioned what change meant.  When I say gullible, I don't mean it insulting although it may come off that way.  I just mean people were snowballed.  I really hope Obama does a good job, though.  

i still have hardest time convincing some people, the World didn't start when Bush took office. I've heard this "8 years of failed bush policies" comment so many times, I'm sick to my stomach.

Apparently, according to Dems, EVERYTHING was perfect until Bush's inauguration in 2001 and EVERYTHING has been terrible since. Well, if we're going to follow that thinking, then once Obama takes office with a democratic congress, EVERYTHING that goes wrong is on them. I don't want to hear any blame being put back on Bush.

I do plan to show obama respect though. At least as much as Bush got from Dems.

I want to see a change in Bush's and the Republicants policies that have driven the US to the brink of destruction.  That is the change I voted for.

If I had wanted the same old polices I would have voted for McCain.

But the problem is the GOP is bitter and they are still operating in attack mode.  Yes, everything needs checks and balances, but goodness sake, Obama is not even sworn in yet. 

There is a huge difference between constructive and destructive critizism.  I imagine the republicans will treat Obama similar to Clinton and constantly look for ways to make him look bad. 

constantly look for ways to make him look bad.

He will make it or break it on his policies and implementation and whether or not he can control the left coast bunch.  Getting the economy back on tract is going to be hard.

How he handles that crisis and the increasing deficit will make him or break him in the final analysis.

And I really do want to hear all the RePUBLICANTS  post the same crap they have been posting for the past year.

Tex: please elaborate on the "left coast bunch" classification.

Bush's autobiography is going to be called "How Clinton messed up my presidency and then Obama came along and finished the job."  Republicans are re-writing history to absolve Bush from having any part in this fiasco.  It's like he never existed for the purpose of placing blame.  Since Republicans just bought ownership of our national economy to the tune of half of our GDP, then they'll hand over the keys and blame Obama for turning us all into socialist commies. 

While Republicans are criticizing Obama's appointees, please explain again the excellent qualifications of Sarah Palin who was responsible for putting 40,000 comedians back to work. 

why do we have to explain plain's qualifiactions?  as so many people state, she lost.  so let's talk about the decisions that obama is making (you know the guy who won).  no one can answer me as to why we can't discuss (and yes critisize) the decisions the obama is making.  we are not trashing his tax policy because he has not put it forth yet and we have to wait and see how that looks.  however, he IS appointing people and making decisions.  those decisions are in contradiction to his words (which he loves so much).  so why is it unfair to discuss those decisions?

The critique right now is unwarranted because as you say he has not take office the only support i can give the people struggling with his appointments are think of it like sports a team can go from last to champs just with the change of a coach NOT THE PLAYERS so again all the obama supporters are asking for is to give the man a chance to at least be the PRESIDENT  before you say what will and wont work

so i can't comment on any decision he makes because he is not president yet?  all of you complain that bush was barely questioned (which is bogus) and now that Obama is being questioned, it's unfair.   

you still did not answer why we can't comment or critique the decisions he is actually making.  He is president-elect.  his decisions will affect things.  the claim that just because he is not sworn in yet is completely bogus.  his actions will have consequences and its necessary to discuss them.  I think it perfect legitimate to discuss what he is actually doing, the decisions he is actually making.  how long do we give him a pass.  when he is sworn in, can we then critique the actions from the last few months?

what i would ask yes critique but dont say because who he has chosen what he wants to do wont work we are asking that you give his policies time to take effect before you pass judgement 

no one can answer me as to why we can't discuss (and yes critisize) the decisions the obama is making.  

You are more than welcome to criticize them, but it make you look foolish since he has yet to take office.

however, he IS appointing people and making decisions.  those decisions are in contradiction to his words (which he loves so much).  so why is it unfair to discuss those decisions?

How are his appointments in contradiction to his words?  When did he ever claim that he would only appoint inexperienced people who have never been to Washington?  Sure, go ahead an discuss (nitpick) Obama's appointments.  Continue to be part of the problem instead of the solution.

W wasn't given the same consideration in 2000.  Why should Obama be given a pass?

Just where would these fresh new faces come from? I guess he could have gotten them fresh out of college but then they would not have any real experience. They could have gone for ???? What I mean is there is really no where or no one that he could have chosen that would have met with everyones approval.. He is not even in office yet so lets at least give him some time before we BBQ him. I am a Dem. and like so many others I will wait to see how he is doing and will back him.... for now. I believe that crooks are alive and well in DC. I just hope this time they prove that change is not only possible but factural.

i've gone into it on other threads on other articles so i don't want to get to far into it here because you will likely disagree:

he promised he would change how things are done.  I find a contradiction in that he is picking a bunch of clintionites.  there are some that aren't but a large part is.  how do you change how things are done by appointing a bunch of insiders.

he said he is inspired by 'team of rivals'.  so far he has 1 republican.  i don't expect all repubs but to say you will have dissenting voices (plural) and you actually pick one... hardly rivals.  granted he took the step but so far has not convenced me that he will actually have dissenting voices on his staff.

When did he ever claim that he would only appoint inexperienced people who have never been to Washington?

when did i say he should pick inexperienced people?  why is that the argument against picking the old guard?  i want people that can do the job. but are you telling me then that there is no one in a private sector or new to government that is not qualified?  he really needs to pick the people that have done it before?  yes he will direct policy but it is not change to pick people that have already stepped up to the plate.

You are more than welcome to criticize them, but it make you look foolish since he has yet to take office.

 again, why is it foolish to talk (and yes, criticize) the decisions he is making?  during the campaign it was fine to debate his tax policy ideas because we were comparing.  now it would be foolish to discuss tax policy because it is not crafted yet and he is not president yet.  but what is being discussed and criticized now are his actual decisions.  no one has yet explained why we can't discuss his actual decisions.  why will no one answer that question directly? 

why can't we discuss, criticize, analyze the decisions that Obama is making.  He is not in office yet but he is making decisions that will affect the country.  Do I really have to wait until jan 20th to discuss his actions over the prior two months? and if so, what does the delay actually do besides give him a pass. Please someone directly answer these questions.

to answer you r question directly ....of course you can noone is saying not to what we are asking again is to quell the doomsday and BS about not being AMerican, and not making change, so when a football team gets a new head coach and they start winning did he change players no, brought in a new direction the same can be said here and tell me who can he pick that would make evryone happen THERE IS NOONE so please relax lets see what policies he brings and if not the roast him like a pig at a luau but right now give him a chance to make a mistake i guess since he is not Dubbya he has to be held accountable typical GOP

I agree we can't complain about policies right now because he is not enacting them.  We are complaining about the actual decisions he is making.  His aapointments can have an effect on the country.  They can be debated for their backgrounds.  and when i see a pattern starting to develop about things being done the way they always have... i am going to call him on it. 

please display to me how Obama is showing he is inspired by team of rivals.  what actions show that he is on that path?  that is legitimate to discuss because his words are that he was inspired by team of rivals.  now is the time that the promise would be fulfilled.  If he picked new (and qualified) people from the private sector or a new seantor or congressman that is still not so ingrained in washington culture, i would believe that he will change how things are done.  right now... it does not seem that way.

you are also right that he will never make everyone happy.  but the happy people need to stop shoving thier hapiness down the upset people's throats.  just because you are ok with it, does not mean I am.  and in this country i have a right to complain and criticize all I want.  if you don't like it.... don't read my posts and don't read articles about

I can agree, experience is important. However, I could probably find the exact quote from one of Obama's speeches, but it went something like the following:

We have to change washington and the way it's run, we can't keep the same faces there and expect different things to happen.

Then he went and picked Joe (be Patriotic and pay more taxes) biden as running mate and people should have realized right then, nothing was gonna change.

He ran on not change from Bush, but change on the entire way washington was run. That's why he's being scrutinized.

yeah cause one party rule as worked so well.  if you didn't like when the repubs had one party rule why is it ok for the dems?

Profchaos

Because the Repubs were the wrong right wing neo-con party, with the wrong right wing neo-con president, with the wrong right wing neo-con vice president, with the wrong right wing neo-con sec of Defense (Rummy).

THAT's why we didn't like it and a complete change from that will save this country if anything will.

balance is needed.  when one party rules... its usually no good.

v2010 - The GOP will not simply go away and let your messiah just have his way.  The GOP does not tend to grab ankles and take it.  That would be the Democratic party; the party so obsessed with the word "Change" they didn't even ask what kind of change.

Hope your messiah with McDonald's cashier-like experience can deliver on his impossible promises.  Otherwise you'll be praying for the GOP to take the messiah off his ego-built throne.

its funny but i remeber MCCAIN trying to use the word CHANGE as well, to bad it didnt work for him its funny how the REPUBLICANS always seem to overlook this KEY point and please tellme what CHANGE MCCAIN was gonna bring and please dont tell me you cant remember when he took up OBAMAs MANTRA so when you talk about change what was THAT ONE gonna do

The D's are acting as if Obama got a huge mandate in this election.  Though the electoral college vote might make it seem that way, his lead in many states was razer thin.  The total was around 4% difference in the popular vote.  That means that the country is still pretty evenly divided and wanted change or thought Obama could fix the economy.  McCain was running ahead until the economy tanked and for some reason people thought Obama might be better at the economy (we shall see--the stock market tanked 1200+ since Obama's election). 

The point is that there are plenty of people--millions of us--who did not vote for Obama, do not like him, his policies, his appointments and fankly not his bitter beer faced wife MIchelle either.  We have and will exercise our right to do everything possible to make sure he behaves himself while in office.  If he even tries to lean left, we will rise up and let him know that is not where this country wants to go.  We will be at his left side and his right side when he wakes up in the morning and goes to bed at night--always barking and nipping at his heels to make sure he stays on the path of freedom and democracy and that he takes care of America first--not Africa or any other place.

We will try to make sure this American President acts like and American President and the he always puts America and Americans first.  If he fails to do that he will not succeed and will loose the presidency next term.  He must fix the economy but that won't happen by appointing those like Rohm who are up to their necks in the cause of the crisis.

Here, here missIFFY!

miss IFFY @8.6

acts like and American President and the he always puts America and Americans first.

That alone would be a wonderful change from the last eight years.

When GWB was in office, the DNC held him accountable.  That's what they're supposed to do, and they did.  Now, it's the RNC's job.  If Obama does a good job, it won't make any difference what the RNC says.  If he doesn't, it's not their job to give him a pass.  The DNC and the left wing media will take care of that part. 

W accountable--now thats a good one.  There is too much power and money floating around that administration for anyone to be accountable.  Even will buy you an election or two.  And oil contacts. 

The American people should be the ones to hold the government accountable.  Not opposing parties.  GOP is being a bunch of sore losers. It is time for the current "party" affiliation method of judgement to end.   

When GWB was in office, the DNC held him accountable.

For what???????????????   Tax breaks for the wealthy???

The DNC did not have the power to hold that sawed off little Hitler wanna-be accountable!

Breaking News!  GWB is still the president until January 20, 2009.  Of course, he's still AWOL when it comes to reassuring the American people and trying to clean up his messes.

texman how bout an illegitimate war how about stealing two presidencies how about bailing out his buddies in Suadi with the money given to citigroup and no to the auto makers who actually employ us citizens   A TRUE RNC SUPPORTER W IS GOD AND INFALLIBLE YOU ARE EITHER WITH ME OR AGAINST ME(HE TRIED TO KILL MY DADDY)

You got that right.

If this economy doesn't get any better in 4 years, Obama is gone.  That's the way it works.  People vote their wallets.  Nobody gives a darn about the ideology of either party.  They're trying to make a living, and if that's not happening, get ready for a change. 

Yeah Ron because the moronic fool that was George Bush not only started a war based on lies, ruined the economy, made his Republican fat cat friends, including himself, rich beyond belief, he did it in the first 4 years. Then he and Karl Rove ranted about Gay Marriage and  stole another election for another 4 years.

Get your head out of your A. Barack is not on a 4 year timetable to "stay in office" he needs 8 years minimum to get us back to maybe being a Country operating in the black, and getting us the hell out of wars that we have neither the right to be in, nor the reality to afford..

Please, we're bringing "Democracy" to Iraq? How'd that work in Viet Nam?? It's over, you jackass. We've had enough of these no name Republican spooks spending this Country's money , killing our youngest kids, for what??? Nothing but the excuse to make money for a few old crusty white Republican men....The sham is over..Stand back, and shut up, and get the hell out of the way, if you don't care to be one of the ones to help with the massive task that lies before this Country..Your Dictatorial reign is over, and we are now back in theDemocracy business.

AGREE

Keith R.:

You said it all.  Democracy begins at home.  How arrogant and ignorant for GWB to claim it is our duty spread democracy to those who neither asked for it, wanted it or even know what it is.  That deluded mission reminds me of the evangelical insanity of the ever present religious zealots who would impose (or force) their beliefs on EVERYONE.

Even if Bush believes that excuse for our country's intrusion into other countries' business, we all know the real reason war is waged.  Money.  And that is the sole reason the RNC is frantically trying to keep its power from disintigrating now.

Chances are that if Obama screws up, his followers will never admit he did bad and they will vote for him again

Do you admit that Bush is the worst screw-up in American history? Did you vote for him again after he became the laughingstockof the planet? Bush got the moron and religious fanatic vote. Obama got the educated vote. Big difference.

mike-330799:

If they care so much, why are the Obamas putting their kids in a private school.

The placing of a President's grade or junior high school children in a private school isn't anything new and it makes it much easier for the Secret Service to protect the kids.

This past election with 97% of the African-American vote going to Obama only proves that they have the minority vote in their pocket; all they had to do was put a black face up there.

Comments like this...absolutely pathetic.  Truly shows the lack of understanding you have for what happened in the last election.  But nothing that I haven't heard before in the past few weeks spouted from some of the rabid right wing talk show hosts.

Its only since the 60's that the damn flower children started the particular brand of self-hatred that is modern American "progressive" liberalism.

Must be only your misguided opinion about "self-hatred" in the liberal ranks...nothing substantial there at all.  You evidently choose to ignore the right wing hate, "doom & gloom" mongers like Rush, Anne, Jerome, and Sean of the ultra-conservative right wing of the Republican party, but their leanings are very evident in your posts.

Personally, I wouldn't be too surprised someday to hear that ol' Limbaugh had an aneurysm while spouting off on his show, that boy does get SO-O-O-O worked up in his tirades.   

Limbaugh went soft he is a moderate at best and has been for years.

I was right.  If you think Limbaugh is a moderate, you probably are pining for Father Coughlin.

The U.S. Supreme Court has that "Hot Potato."  It should have never reached this point, but it did.  All over a $12.00 birth certificate.  Amazing

Bill M-317648   I'm tired of your rants -- put a lid on it. 

Bill M-317648:

So, what is his problem?? What does he have to hide???  Will that document be among the few presidential mysteries of all time?? Like, who did kill JFK?? Where was Barry born??

Obama isn't the one with a "problem"...it's people like you regurgitating old Rush Limbaugh and Jerome Corsi talking points who have a problem.

Take a couple of deep breaths, let it go, and move on...

Petty.  Very Petty. 

Bill, tsk, tsk. You aren't really 'serious'.... are you?

The "birth certificate" issue is one of those, "don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up" attitudes that some people embrace.  Obama did show his birth certificate, Hawaii officials have attested to its authenticity.  There was even a newspaper announcement of his birth uncovered, but the conspiracy buffs cling to their accusations.

This is in the same vein as the people who, on the other side, insist that the twin towers were bombed by the government.  No amount of factual information will change their minds, just as no amount of factual information will convince the Obama haters that the birth certificate issue was concocted to create doubt.  It's a red herring in any case, because Obama's mother was a US citizen, and no matter where he was born he would be one too.  Act of Congress of 1790.   "And the children of citizens of the
United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the
United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."
Or is that fake, too?

Bill M-317648, Here's a copy of Obama's birth certificate.

And in any case, even if you think its a forgery (ignoring every government and security organization verifying Obama's birth certificate), Obama still can be President because the Naturalization Act of 1790 says that any person born outside the limits of the United States to US citizens is a natural born citizen. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution says you have to be a natural born citizen to be eligible for the presidency.

"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."

read it here:

Give it up, before ignorance totally blinds you.

Thanks JB for that post. I get tired of hearing all the ridiculous things that people believe. My neighbor still swears that Obama is a killer and terrorist in disguise and the anti-christ. No amount of logic or common sense can bring her to think different. She heard it one day and has believed it ever since. I'm surprised they haven't locked her up yet.

The Republicans are "the common clay", "the salt of the earth"; you know...MORONS!

Even after 8 years, I don't think these idiots are going to go away. Except Bush; he'e already left the planet.

"Except Bush; he'e already left the planet."

As Bush exits planet Earth, I hope is lands on Lovetron.  He and Daryl Dawkins can have some good times together.

Bill M.-What the hell are you even talking about??? What do 'you" have to hide, other than the fact you are a Flaming Racist, White Supremacist, (which you can't hide whatsoever!), and you're here trying to write, when your already 20 minutes for your Klan meeting.

Get out of here with your ignorant rantings, the U.S. is sick of your misguided, braindead gibberish..Have another shot of Shine....

Bill

Sore losers?? That's funny. 8 years of whinning of how "W" stole the election in 2000. HA.

He did.  Difference between sore losers and those that have a valid complaint.  However, your comments and not valid, so you probably don't know the meaning of the word, right along with "fair" and "truthful".

JB-498817 #14.6 & Vote-684690 - Regarding your comment in #14.7

"Give it up, before ignorance totally blinds you."

I believe you are a casualty of your own myopic comment. 

Let me start by saying I really don’t care about the O’man’s birth details. But I do care about accuracy.   So stay with me on this.

-         “even if you think its (sic) a forgery” It is very important.  Would we want someone who would present forged or falsified documents to be President of the United States?  Or to compound with allowing such an error to continue unchecked (hard not to notice).  I think it would be a very BIG DEAL.  Not just because of it being the O’man, but a big deal period.  It is a simple matter; produce the document and end the rumors, speculation, and conspiracy theories.  Save the courts and everyone else the time, money and anxiety over the issue.  The longer it goes on the more attention and people it attracts.

-         If he indeed was born in Hawaii, then the issue of Citizenship is no issue at all and a simple authorized release by state officials will satisfy most all, but the lunatic fringes.

-         Your comment “Obama still can be President because the Naturalization Act of 1790” I suggest that you do some reading, beyond what might support a position that you are trying to take.  I am not calling you names, but that is a Left Wing style of argument.  Based on what you cite, he couldn’t become a US Citizen because of his race and other circumstances.  The Naturalization Act has been changed by Amendment, Court Decisions and requirements set out in US Nationality (and Citizenship) Laws many times.

-         Should the birth have been abroad, there’s likely to be a “certainty” of eligibility, but not a guarantee of citizenship?  There are a number of requirement set out by US Law, even with one or both US parents, that must be fulfilled in order to present the case for consideration. Only following a decision is actual citizenship determined; it is not automatic. 

-         These rules regarding eligibility change from time to time, and the rule in effect when he was born is the rule that applies.  I am relatively certain, that it is not the rule in effect at the time of application if different from that at birth.

-         If that is the case, did O’man’s mother complete the steps needed for him to apply for US Citizenship?  If so, is there a US Government record.  If not, did she take the necessary steps to insure (simplify) his later application for consideration for citizenship?

-         How did he travel, was it with a US Passport?  What documents did he and his mother (if traveling when he was a baby on same passport) use?  Was a birth certificate used to obtain the passport?  What information is on file with the office issuing initial passport (US or Abroad)?

-         "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or outside the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."   Again, not so fast.  I think that is more of your “Left Wing” speculation, wishful thinking and overstating reality.  That has yet to be determined when applied to the rules of eligibility for the Presidency.  I would again suggest that you go back and do so some serious reading on both sides of this issue.  Even if the hurdle of citizenship were met, there would still be the hurdle of the true definition related to eligibility for the Presidency.  The question of “Natural-Born Citizen” will be a very long court battle and a constitutional issue debated to no end regardless of candidate, race, religion, place of birth, etc.

A lot of questions could be answered with a simple birth certificate. I do not understand what makes this a seemingly difficult or impossible task.  If this would quell even a moderate number of questioners and go a long way to removing a larger number who might harbor even a slight suspicion why not do it? 

Then again, absent such a simple document and if in fact it does not exist, I would hate to think of the crisis in confidence this would cause for our country and the split that would occur.

He is a US citizen with a birth certificate issued from the State of Hawaii.   Asked, and answered and answered and answered.  How many times does it need to be answered before you will finally believe that it is true?

fireyone and others--

A couple of things.  While it is true that Obama, if born in Kenya (where apparently there are birth records in Mombasa and his own grandmother says she was there in Mombasa when he was born) would be assumed to still be a citizen because his mother was a citizen.  At the time he was born there was a caveate.  His mother would have had to live in the United States for five years after her 16th birthday.  Since she was only 18 that would not have been possible and Obamapapa was a Kenyan so that doesn't help.  If he was born in Kenya (which evidence has been taken to the Supreme Court now so it indeed is not settled) he would not be a natural born citizen even if Obamamama, Stanley Ann was a citizen of the US.  Naturalized won't cut it.  Ask Arnold--he is a naturalized citizen and governor of California, but not able to serve as President without a Constitutional amendment.

One can only ask why Obama has had his birth record sealed in Hawaii if it is indeed there.   What else is he hiding?  Either it isn't there and he isn't a citizen or it is there and he is hiding some hideous secret.  Otherwise why didn't he produce it in discovery when the judge asked him to do so.

Second, really the more damning situation is that he lived in Indonesia where he was adopted (Michelle Obama admittted this in a recent speech to the African Press Corp) by his step father.  That was a time when to become a citizen of Indonesia under Suharto one had to renounce any other citizenship.  One had to be a citizen to go to school and Obama went to school--hence he was no longer a US citizen (if he ever had been).  He travelled on an Indonesian passport when he went to Pakistan at age 20 (interesting that it was Pakistan--one might ask which camp).  That means that even at age 20 he was still solely (under Indonesian law) a citizen of Indonesia.  That means that there is a question of when and if he became repatriated into the US.  Is he even a US citizen?  Now the bigger problem.  Once he had renounced his US citizen ship, even becoming repatriated wouldn't help.  That would make him a "naturalized" citizen like Arnold S.--not a "natural born" citizen as the Constitution mandates.

This is all in court now.  Certainly has not gone away.  Certainly has not been disproved and no, having factcheck certify anything to do with Obama doesn't count.  They are run by Annenburt--same group that funded Obama and Ayers in their attempts to bring Marxist doctrine to all school children in Chicago years ago.

Watch for this case in court.  I have met just this week on this matter with the man who filed suit (one of many)  and members of Congress interested in seeing this pushed forward.

One can only ask why Obama has had his birth record sealed in Hawaii if it is indeed there.   What else is he hiding?  Either it isn't there and he isn't a citizen or it is there and he is hiding some hideous secret.  Otherwise why didn't he produce it in discovery when the judge asked him to do so.

His birth certificate isn't sealed.  However, it isn't available for just anyone to see.  The state of Hawaii will only release a copy if there is a legitimate reason for the request.  Being a bigoted right-wing nutcase is not, according to the state of Hawaii, a legitimate excuse.

This is all in court now.  Certainly has not gone away.  Certainly has not been disproved and no, having factcheck certify anything to do with Obama doesn't count.  They are run by Annenburt--same group that funded Obama and Ayers in their attempts to bring Marxist doctrine to all school children in Chicago years ago.

It is the Annenburg (not Annenburt) Public Policy Center that runs FactCheck.  It was established by Walter Annenburg, a life-long conservative and an ambassador for Regan.  The Annenburg family endorsed McCain/Palin.  They are hardly the type to fund attempt to bring Marxism to Chicago school children.

So, do you just make these things up or do you rely on right-wing, nutcase blogs for your facts?

sqrtnegone,

Not to start argument.  Just a simple reasonable question. Why do you think it is that he does not make an open and public release to a discovery motion or to another acceptable public forum?

It all seems like a very simple matter to resolve a controversial issue.  There is no jeopready or legal penalty whatsoever involved in verifying his US citizenship or official birth record. 

It would go a long way to cement his credibility and discredit his detractors.  I would think this would be welcomed as a great opportunity.  This is not like releasing financial records or other documents that could be scrutinized or misinterpreted.  These are straight forward, essential documents that are required to be verified by the US Government for any government position requiring a security clearance.  This should be no exception.

He did make his birth certificate available to the appropriate individuals and agencies. It has been examined and verified to the degree necessary for him to serve as president and hold the appropriate clearances. Just because some racist, right-wing, nut-jobs feel that it is necessary to perpetuate a lie doesn't mean that he owes them a look at the document as well.

Well, for that matter, where did they say McCain was born. NOw get real and shut-up on this so called "point". He is our pres. elect and IF you care about this country, like all you REPS. say you do, get behind the gov. and it's officials and grow-up. You're not helping anything. If you can be part of the solution, don't be part of the problem.  

I agree completely. The only thing I worry about is that Barack might actually end up listening to the idiotic advice of trying to govern too much from the center. This is the first time since FDR that real liberals and progressives have had this chance and if he doesn't take care of some of our desires then he'll lose our support. He has a mandate from the American people to bring REAL change to Washington. To turn it back to the ideals of great men like FDR. He needs to be really aggressive! He needs to make bold, massive and sweeping changes! If he doesn't then I'm afraid it'll all be for naught. I voted for him to move this nation back to the left/center where it belongs! I expect him to do it!

Why not the right/center. or just the center? Why does this country "belong" even slightly to the left let alone as left as most of the posters to this discussion? I gues that if you are a liberal everything depends on how you define things. Like the word "progressive" itself. When you define everything that you want to see happen as "progress" well then of course you are a progressive and everyone who may disagree with you is a "fascist" or "racist" or "right wing nut-job"-how easy it is to be sure that you are correct in your assertions when you can simply define them as correct.

Too bad noone seems to be able to get a clear definition of the word "is!"

Because this is a left center nation and returning to that is just balancing it back out after being shoved to the lunatic far right wing by the Bush administration. FDR governed from the left center and was without a doubt one of the greatest of all presidents. So did Lincoln and Eisenhower for that matter. Hell even Nixon was a raging liberal compared to Bush/Cheney.

America is a center/right country.  Obama will move to the middle or will be out in four years!

He is already finding a large part of his base questioning his appointments! 

When anyone talks about himself (even in jest) as having

been born in a manger the expectations of him as a miracle worker rise far beyond the ability of a mere mortal like Obama to perform. 

Obama cannot help but fall short of expectations because he is/was as he says in his book, a "blank sheet" upon which everyone can project their expectations.  When the expectations of the Far Left fail (we will still be at war and he will have no choice but to escalate into Pakistan/Afghanistani tribal areas or be the Pres. who lost the US) and we are in an ever expanding war, his anti-war legions will fall away.  When there is still poverty and jobs still move overseas (actually accelerated by an increase in capital gains taxes), those who saw on the sheet someone who would bring social justice will rail at the fact that there is still inequality and it is probably worse as it gets in a bad economy gets worse.

America is a center/right country. 

Complete myth that republicans tell themselves when they're down and out.

As for Barack, unlike those on the right who blindly followed Bush no matter how he lied or twisted the law, those of us on the left blindly follow no one. This whole idea that we see Barack as some sort of saviour or saint is complete and utter BS made up by right wing talk radio idiots and parroted by their ditto head followers. Nothing could be further from the truth. We do not expect Barack to work any miracles, esp in the area of the economy because Bush and company have screwed it up so badly that it'll take several years to clean up. That said, we do expect him to do some of the other things he promised like pursue criminal charges against those who lied us into the Iraq war, no matter their party or office. Unlike Bush supporters however, if he fails to do this and some of his other promises we'll look within the party for someone else who will and run them in 2012 against him. If that costs Barack and the party the re-election, then so be it. If he doesn't end this war and hold those responsible for it accountable, then we'll find someone else who will. We intend to hold our party leaders accountable for their words and promises and not blindly follow them just because they have (D) after their name. They work for us.

I would hardly call FDR "center/left;" if you recall, he tried to stack the Supreme Court in his second term so as to overcome the only check on his authority. While a great president, I would hardly call him our greatest. Lincoln on the other hand was hardly left of center, his radical governing policies (such as suspending habeas corpus) came at a time when the country was riven by civil war, and had he lived, I think that he would have let the government return to its pre-war state (as it did under Johnson), something that didn't happen after FDR. All of the New Deal programs that were necessary for fighting the Depression simply stayed on afterwards and were expanded under Johnson, which I view as one of the chief reasons for our current economic plight. Eisenhower and Nixon as left/center? Why, because of their policies on civil rights? That was coming no mtter what or who was in office.

Most of what you define as center/left for those men is what would now be called center/right. Modern center/left is really mid left, bordering on far/left. Again, its a matter of definition. It is undeniable that the Democratic Party took a HARD turn to the far left in 1968 and has never truly come back to the center. If you want me to pick a truly center/left Democrat that I could get behind, it would be Harry Truman. Today, he would probably be considered center/right. Unfortunately, I don't look to see his like from the Democratic Party ever again.

The left has tried, with much success to consistently knock the "center" as far to the left as possible. If conservatives seem unreasonable and far right, it is only because the radicals of the left define anything but their own political viewpoints as right-of-center and even moderate conservatives can be called fascists from that perspective. As we all know by now "perception is reality." Its true because of how liberals define it.

In the case of Lincoln he was extremely left of center for his time. If he had to be because of the civil war does not change the fact that he was. He freed the slaves, which was a radical idea at the time when the GOP was the leftist party in America and the Democrats were the racist right wing.

Yes FDR's social polices (many of them) continue to this day, but they have saved and improved the lives of hundreds of millions of working men, women and children. They certainly have not contributed to our current economic problems! Unchecked and deregulated free market capitalism is the direct cause of our current meltdown and the social polices of the left are what is keeping food on many Americans table via social security, food stamps and unemployment compensation.

As for Eisenhower and Nixon, neither of them would find any support in today's extremist right wing GOP. Eisenhower committed the "sin" of starting massive public works programs (highway system) and speaking against the Military Industrial Complex (a phrase he came up with). Nixon negotiated, without preconditions, with communists and signed increases in food stamps and welfare into law. Both of them would be considered raging liberals by the current GOP standards

Snyder
He had a mandate for Real change and what did he do.
He brought back the whole Sleazy Clinton crew.
Is that the change you were looking for?

Well said Brenda. RNC only knows how to make the other party/person look bad.  It is getting VERY old-same ole, same ole from them.

Right on Brenda!  I guess they are trying to "move on" from the mistakes of Bush.  However they are moving backwards or standing still at best.

"Let's see, their guy is still in office while the economy is still melting down.  And all they can do is complain about the new guy who is trying to do something???"

That would be due to the fact that the something the new guy is trying to do is an expansion of the Bush policies that have already caused so many problems.  World record corporate taxes, US record income taxation, liberal attacks against business growth (despite calling himself a Republican)...all causing major problems in this country and around the world.  And with the new guy promising for an expansion on those policies while claiming that they will magically fix things as the same policies are not doing now, the most logical step is to call against those expansions.  Bush is still in office and the economy is seeing problems.  The new guy is forming proposals that will cause even greater problems for the economy, and you're saying that we shouldn't start standing against that which will take more jobs and hurt every financial class more than they are seeing today?  Yes, Bush is still in office.  This is the EXACT reason why the new guy needs to be put in check...before coming in and putting forth proposals that people simply assume are going to bring magical change but in reality promise nothing but negative long term consequences.  We need to take a lesson from the Bush years and put a stop to the proposals BEFORE they take effect and start causing greater damage.  The Bush years provide a perfect example of why we need to look at the new guy NOW, while the current guy is still in office.

I wish that would happen as well but here is why it will not:

"But the Republican party apparatus has an incentive to keep the heat on Mr. Obama and show donors and activists that it will not crumble despite the tough losses in this month’s elections. "

The party machine mainly exists to get money and people on their side.  This creates a behavior of constant criticism.  Critizing nearly everything makes impossible the role of true watchdog.  It's like the boy who called wolf.

This is not isolated to the republican party machine.  If the democratic party machine did not do the exact same thing they would have been in a better position to oppose the crimes of the Bush administration.  Going back further if the republican party had not been constantly crying wolf then Clinton may have actually been impeached when the time came.

If the party machines were a news agency their behavior could be likened to being arsonists to get their ratings up and give a false sense of being a watchdog.

While the party machines are somewhat responsible for contributing to this "partisan without purpose" mindset I lay the blame squarely of the vast majority who are unaware that they are being played.

You can be on one side or the other but if your side is crying wolf you should tell them to stop.

JB

The "change" I'm hoping for is a change of attitude and better working together from BOTH sides of the aisle.

I think that will come in time.  We, the American public, have been through a very traumatic 8 years of secrecy, deceit and down right criminal actions from our current administration.  The dems and the majority, finally had enough and voted for change.  What is left now is the whining from the repubs and the righteousness of the Dems.  It will take a while for the temperatures to go down.  Our nation is in dire straights right now, and if predictions are correct, will get worse in the coming months.  PE Obama has put together a good team so far and I believe, will lead the country with a steady hand and an openness that will heal some of the political wounds.