Sore Losers and "Country-Last" Republicans Have Already Resumed Partisan Attacks, Obstruction: GOP Leadership Threatens to Sabotage Nation, Destroy Their Own Party

The D.C. crowd considers everybody outside a pawn.  Our president-elect will scuttle our country.  Hopefully he will not be allowed to take the oath of office due to the obamacrimes.com lawsuit.

The Republicans right now are in disarray. This is a good example of 'sour grapes' and being a sore loser.

They also have no one to blame but themselves. When more than SIXTY MILLION AMERICANS say 'no more', that should be a hint that no one is buying what they are selling.

The people have spoken. Get used to it. Stop being part of the problem and become part of the solution. Whining won't help. Listening to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh won't help. Hatemongering certainly won't help.

No one except neo-cons, (who have an agenda separate from working folks) is listening. Enough is enough.

Barack Obama is our new President and deserves a chance to show what he can do. Why? Because the citizens of this country overwhelmingly SAID SO. That is reality.

Robert,I have to agree to a point.

But  think about this the Republican Party were gloating in 94 after they won a majority in congress.Their mind set was nothing can go wrong they now have a mandate for change.

But this country is divided with some serious issues that are on the third rail,any attempt to force change would be deemed radical to the party with no power.Now we have a political witch hunt in congress to remove power from the moderates in both partys  ie. Lieberman.

So with Reid and Pelosi to the victors go the spoils ,need I remind them this country is still divided and with and partisianship that is condoned will not do any thing but tear down any chance for compromise.

I guess the new attitude is Gloat.

Robert:

Just because 60M said yes to someone that has no track record, and we all watch to see what he will really do (I see is going to back peddle on withdrawl of troops) as president, does not indicate that the rest of our voices should not be heard, and respected as part of "We The People".  You are really doing what Bush did, and that is to not count the rest of us.  For me, I am a 3rd party voter, I think the 2 Party System is broken.   We will all never agree on everything, but to toss the rest of the poeple out that did not vote with you seems to me to border on a one party only system, and that is not what this country is all about.

Far to long so many voices have been forced to be quiet if they did not agree with the ruling party, it is time for that to stop, and for all voices to be heard and included in an administration.  THis includes the weakest voice in all America, and that is the Native American, the voice has been placed in Reservations, where we can be kept slient, and a treaty that was signed easily broken, with no fear the Natives will make a sound.  This type of treatment of all groups, not just the Native Americans must stop.  Just because you do not agree with a group, does not mean they should not have a voice.  I may not agree with Republican's but I do believe they must have a voice, and must be shown respect.  If you do not want to give them a voice, how are you different than Russia, China, ect?   Why do you want to keep groups quiet, and out of sight, this is wrong.

Andrew--I think that you have written a great article, which carries my sentiments very well.

Robert--well stated.  What I think I remember seeing was that the numbers shake out something like this: Republicans 32 %, Democrats 34 % and Independents 34%.  My take on this is that the Independents carried the election.  The US voting population has spoken: give Mr. Obama a chance to perform as he has claimed he would.  Cut him every slack possible, especially with our economy in shambles.  Give him every opportunity to achieve the goals he expounded and which won him the Presidency.  If, after four years he has not accomplished those goals (or a substantial part of them) then vote in a new President.  But obstructionist politics is, according to the voting population, not going to be accepted!!  To the RNC and DNC: abandon your failed obstructionism it is time to get our economy back on track, rebuild our infrastructure, rebuild our military, and get the US back to being the greatest country in the world!!

Brian and Jeff:

What can I say, despite the actions to try and prevent Obama's win, the criminal part of the Republicans could not stop the majority from having their say. (Although you should read Nearing's vine on Alaska...something does stink up their)

Bush was attacked because of the lousy way he got into office, stayed in office, and conducted the office of POTUS.

He will be gone and Obama will be our next president, and that phsyco in Phillidophia can not stop it.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/browse.html

Hopefully he will not be allowed to take the oath of office due to the obamacrimes.com lawsuit.

Oh, for crying out loud.  Have the repubs already lined up some Paula Jones-esque lawsuit against Obama and picked out the "independent" counsel to investigate him throughout his tenure.  Are we turning the clock back 16 years?

tracey,

 The difference between now and then is Michelle will emasculate "that one" and then we would have president eunuch. Hillary did not have enough self respect to do it.

What I think I remember seeing was that the numbers shake out something like this: Republicans 32 %, Democrats 34 % and Independents 34%. My take on this is that the Independents carried the election.

There are no where near that number of Independents, not even close. They are at best single digits, probably < 5%.

Paul William Tenny:

What is your source? I remember seeing those numbers on ABC around the 2000 election and quoted on the radio in 2004. Whether his numbers are exact or not they are close to others I've heard.

So what is your source?

This article is GREAT! just GREAT (say with Chris Matthews accent). It sums up perfectly the problems of the past and the problems that Republicans will force down the throats of those who wish to heal this nation and make politics more palatable to US ALL. John Boehner is just another Tom Delay, Ol' Tom is the most partisan idiotic ,racist piece of crap to ever grace D.C.. I'm not to fond of the fact that he comes from my home state of Ohio. I saw a elderly white woman with a walker plead with a black man in a grandmotherly way to tie his shoe lace before he tripped and hurt himself. This happend in the line waiting to vote early monday, this warmed my heart and made me realize that not all older white Americans are entwined in stupid racist behavior! The Republican party needs to embrace the attitude that I witnessed and stop this childish immature behavior! They (republicans) have become the un-Americans that they so eagerly point out on a daily basis, this is a prime example of the pot calling the kettle black! This is why I'm a Democrat, because WE do not hold such in-human ways to our hearts and accept everyone as Americans no matter what! This attitude does not bode well for God's Only Party!...GROW UP!!!

Joseph are you for real??..grow up, let's speak of race since you brought it up..hhhmmm approx. 98% of african americans voted for Obama..so you are going to bring up race when apparently the african american population voted for the savior...it is true racism is very vigorous in our country only it seems the african americans bring it up all the time and then show their true colors..by the way what is an african american anyway?? are they african or american? lass i checked we live in america..so don't spill your guts about one party being this or that when it is obvious that racism is a two way street..

Andrew, great article.

It appears that the Republicans have learned nothing from this election.  They continue as before offering only hatred and fear, commodities that the majority of Americans are no longer buying.  As long as they continue on this track, they will further marginalize themselves.

You know... I listened to right wing radio the last couple of days as the continue to spout off negative things about PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA, and I began to feel that familiar tinge of frustration that I felt during the campaign, you know, before PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA won by a landslide and all. Then, I was reminded of something Keith Olbermann stated during his Worst Persons segment the other day: "YOU DON'T MATTER ANYMOOOORE!". 

When I heard that it was so funny b/c it was so true. Hannity and his followers only mattered when we thought it might cost us our country by putting McSame/Panic in the White House. But now, we PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA supporters got the man we wanted going to the White House. So, let those mean spirited demagogues lick and nip at their wounds until they're all oozy and infected, that'll keep them busy and distracted until 4 years from now. When friends or media on the right try to engage you with negativity simply say (to yourself if in public): "Who cares what you say, YOU DON'T MATTER ANYMOOORE!"

Allsgood...Yes I am for real! as real as a runaway truck full of Dynamite heading for a match factory! I can't really understand what you are attempting to get at in your posting, perhaps a dictionary would be a good start for you. I do agree that racism is not only a (white) thing, but when I have been confronted by this I do my level best not to reciprocate in kind, hoping that my behavior will plant a seed and that later this will change their behavior towards someone else. Did you read the part about the voting day thing or did you chose to ignore it altogether. I'm asking this because if you had read it and took it in the pure spirit of which I intended to convey, then your comment should have at least acknowledged that or maybe your attitude would have been one of understanding and not one of negativity. But you have without knowing only proved my point even better than I did.

You know... I listened to right wing radio the last couple of days as the continue to spout off negative things about PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA, and I began to feel that familiar tinge of frustration that I felt during the campaign, you know, before PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA won by a landslide and all. Then, I was reminded of something Keith Olbermann stated during his Worst Persons segment the other day: "YOU DON'T MATTER ANYMOOOORE!". 

When I heard that it was so funny b/c it was so true. Hannity and his followers only mattered when we thought it might cost us our country by putting McSame/Panic in the White House. But now, we PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA supporters got the man we wanted going to the White House. So, let those mean spirited demagogues lick and nip at their wounds until they're all oozy and infected, that'll keep them busy and distracted until 4 years from now. When friends or media on the right try to engage you with negativity simply say (to yourself if in public): "Who cares what you say, YOU DON'T MATTER ANYMOOORE!"

Yes, we 57 million who voted for McCain know very well that we don't matter to the Dems. If we mattered, they wouldn't be so calluos in taking our money. Enjoy gloating while you can. It's still the honeymoon. Tough times ahead, particularly with THIS President and House in charge. See you in the poorhouse.

so calluos in taking our money.

Fred, I've gone to the mailbox three times today, when will my check be arriving? or are you just going to roll it over in a wheel barrow?

Yes, we 57 million who voted for McCain know very well that we don't matter to the Dems. If we mattered, they wouldn't be so calluos in taking our money. Enjoy gloating while you can. It's still the honeymoon. Tough times ahead, particularly with THIS President and House in charge. See you in the poorhouse.

Well, I'm already there, so I'll see ya when you get here! LOL.

If you classify and/or identify yourself with "right wing radio". "Hannity and his followers", and/or "mean spirited demagogues" well, then you're right you don't matter, and if that goes for the other 47% of Americans who voted McCain, then so be it. I however believe that the majority of that 47% do not self-identify under those categories and would like to see our country's president do well for our country, and contribute in the process in whatever way we can. So while you wait for "THIS" president to take your money and send you to the poor house, hopefully the rest of the country will be busy coalescing around OUR president and OUR country's future success. And to those who'd rather not participate in the next 4-8 years of this democracy "YOU DONT' MATTER ANYMOOOOORE!"

I'm a GOP supporter and I am G-L-A-D to see the dems in charge. Oh no, not because I am sick of Bush. I'm more or less neutral on him. But because now instead of hearing how bad a job Bush is doing and stupid republican this or that, one of two things will happen.

1. Freedom of expression will be muffled by "fairness" and such, which will disappoint people who treat him like he can do no wrong.

2. Or he'll make bad decisions that will make him look like every other politician and there will be people calling him on it every step of the way.

Both make me feel good for not checking him on the ballot. I was't super impressed with McCain, but I wasn't going to abandon my political beliefs to vote BHO.

 Freedom of expression will be muffled by "fairness" and such, which will disappoint people who treat him like he can do no wrong.

Speaking of freedoms being taken away, go read the PATRIOT act.

I'm an independant, but I voted for Obama because I was tired of a party that did nothing but try to scare people so they could start an open-ended war and pass legislation that allows them to ignore parts of the bill of rights.

Ok Joe here is my point since my post was seemingly incoherent to you...no party is a race and to infer that the republican party is a racist party is untrue and I ask that you prove otherwise...your condescending attitude is recognized but the nature of it is ignored...I have always thought there were americans so why the code words such as "african americans" "mexican americans" etc. these terms to me are racist as well...either we are americans or not...you are not from africa I'm guessing..you are from Ohio as you stated...as long as the politically correct emphasise these differences we will be different and not americans...as a side note I did not vote for obama and until he proves otherwise I will put him in the same category as most politicians...a rhetorical pundit and promise breaker...you go ahead and ride that dynamite truck to the match factory and keep it puckered..

Freedom of expression was trampled on for the past eight years any time someone dared to criticize the government or the war.  And Freedom of expression would have been further muffled by Palin, who didn't even understand what freedom of speech meant, if God forbid she had ended up in the top seat.

Bush had eight years and the average American is worse off today than eight years ago.  Many of us supported our President and his broken administration through the past eight years because he was our President, even though we disagreed with his policies and practices.  It stands to reason that folks could give President-elect Obama AT LEAST enough time to actually get into office.

I think it's a great start to hear Obama state that he won't be taking advantage of some of the policies Bush/Cheney put into place to bolster their power and prevent transparency.  That speaks very well for him because he could have easily let that slide and used the increased powers for himself.

Tex did you happen to notice that democrats signed on to that bill also...only now Obama has that power not Bush...you should write your congress man not blame Bush or republicans...

Freedom of expression was trampled on for the past eight years any time someone dared to criticize the government or the war. 

Please!  Justify this.  When has anyone's freedom of expression been trampled?  Was it trampled when Code Pink P#$$%s were given reserved parking in front of the USMC Recruiting Office in Berkely?  How about when they were allowed to protest outside the gate to Walter Reed Army Hospital?  How about the dumbasses from the Westboro Baptist Church protesting soldiers funerals?  Come on, tell me when?

Bull@!$%# Andrew.  The dems saw the same inteligence reports.  They reached the same conclusions.  No pass on the "lie" lie.  Everyone came to the same conclusion from the same intel.  They are just as guilty.

Try again.

The United States Supreme Court will decide BHO's fate in December.  The united we stand, divided we fall is here upon all of us.

If Obama is declared ineligible to take the oath of office there will be civil unrest.  If the questions about Obama are not clarified there will be civil unrest.  Obama has already made many Americans refugees or evacuativees. 

Brian, all the questions were answered and the Supreme Court will throw this out just as the lower courts did. As far as making Americans evacuees, if you hurry you might just catch up.  Hail to the New Chief.

Thanks even more for making my point far more vividly than any description I could muster without aid of psychopharmacology.

Andrew, I fear you are becoming unhinged. You, who regularly launch the most blatant partisan, mean spirited attacks on all things Republican and /or conservative, are now whining about 'good for the goose and good for the gander'?

If you weren't so busy doing your best to lie about Sarah Palin for the 999th time, maybe you would be able to see that Obama is being met with nothing more than the usual gamesmanship that attaches itself to the transfer of power in Washington and in the Congress.

But let me ask you, do you understand that Congress, controlled by Democratic leadership since 2006, is held in lower regard in the polls thatn your whipping boy Bush is? Do you understand that the election results are not a mandate for a leftist agenda gone wild on Capitol Hill, but rather a repudiation of the mistakes of the Bush White House? Stop obsessing on Sarah Palin like a 14 year pimple faced boy, and start thinking before you rant.

Please!  Justify this.  When has anyone's freedom of expression been trampled?

Lets ask the Dixie Chicks.

Dixie Chicks = annoying

Dixie Chicks = annoying

Well, that's just your opinion. I think most country music is, no argument there.

But that has nothing to do with their politics and how the right pounced on them like a pack of mad dogs for expressing theirs now does it?

They weren't prevented from expressing their views.  Their views were unpopular with some of the people that made up their fan base.  When you're saying stuff that's alienating your fan base you're not going to remain popular for very long.  You're not going to sell records, are ya?  It's no fun to be a critic of Bush if no one is going to listen to you anymore because you're a music has-been...  They weren't prevented from expressing their views.  It was better, financially, for them to stop.

Critics of Obama have been pounced upon and trounced soundly on Newsvine time and time again...  Did they deserve it?  No.  Did that stop anybody from doing it?  G*D No.  They weren't prevented from expressing their views.  The view of the "right" was (and is) just unpopular on the Vine.

Sorry, your "trodden-upon freedom of expression" argument for the Dixie Chicks is just not going to fly.

Lets boycott some French wine and rename french fries while we think of a few more examples...

Lets boycott some French wine and rename french fries while we think of a few more examples...

Are you trying to give examples of Freedom of Expression because those are two good ones. Boycotts, strikes, and the like are perfect examples of expressing one's discontent and, thankfully, are a cherished right.

Very good, Bellamy.  :-)

Furthermore, the Robb-Silberman Commission found the administration guilty of deliberately altering information to produce the deired alrmist tone in the media and congress, so as to gain an emergency authorization

Perhaps you should reread the report:

The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.

Try again.

As Bill Ayers said.  " I can do more damage here "  Obama's court cases will not be Thrown Out.  You can not see the future.  This has divided the country, and you can not clain the unifyier has unified.  As Sargent Shultz said " We know Nothing ".

What is good for a half-wit goose in George W. Bush is good for a half-wit gander in Barack Obama. Paybacks are hell. The donkey is still braying after eight years, but then the last two years of the do-nothing donkey Congress has demonstrated that it doesn't know how to legislate, only to ridicule and criticize. BTW a gander is a female - were you making a sexist statement?

Is what is good for a half-wit goose in George W. Bush, not just as good for our new and far more capable gander-elect? Clearly, we are in for more hypocrisy, and just plain-old-more-of-the-same from the obstructionist GOP.

The Congress NEVER SAW THE REPORTS UNTIL AFTER THE VOTE!

Andrew, you would do well to acquaint yourself with the relevant facts before making such jaw-droppingly inaccurate statements. The fact is that the full NIE of October 2002 was available to all members of Congress before they voted but only a few like FL Senator Bob Graham bothered to read it. From a FactCheck.org article on the subject

One senator, Bob Graham of Florida, then chairman of the intelligence committee, has said that reading the full, classified 2002 NIE led him to vote against the war resolution. He had urged his colleagues to read the entire 92-page classified report prior to the vote. Graham said in a National Public Radio interview in June 2007 that he found the report to be "pocked with dissent, conditions, [and] minority opinions on a variety of critical issues."

The Washington Post's Dana Priest reported in 2004:

Washington Post: No more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page National Intelligence Estimate executive summary, according to several congressional aides responsible for safeguarding the classified material.

In 2007 the Washington, D.C., newspaper The Hill surveyed current and former senators and reported that 22 of those who were serving in 2002 sent word they had read the full report. Since it would be embarrassing now to admit not reading it before voting on such an important matter, we suspect that number is inflated. But whether the true number is six or 22, it's clear that only a small minority of the 100-member Senate read this important intelligence summary in full.

Among those who later admitted to not reading the full report were Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Chris Dodd, and Republican Sens. Sam Brownback and John McCain. All of them voted in favor of the war resolution, and all later ran for their respective party's 2008 presidential nomination.

You're doing your readers a great disservice by not being acquainted with the rudimentary facts of these issues.

Andrew

It is you who does not have their facts straight on this issue. The fact is that members of Congress had full access to the full classified NIE of October 2002 but almost none of them, with the exception of FL Senator Bob Graham, bothered to even read it. From a FactCheck.org article on the matter:

Bob Graham of Florida, then chairman of the intelligence committee, has said that reading the full, classified 2002 NIE led him to vote against the war resolution. He had urged his colleagues to read the entire 92-page classified report prior to the vote. Graham said in a National Public Radio interview in June 2007 that he found the report to be "pocked with dissent, conditions, [and] minority opinions on a variety of critical issues."

The Washington Post's Dana Priest reported in 2004:

Washington Post: No more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page National Intelligence Estimate executive summary, according to several congressional aides responsible for safeguarding the classified material.

In 2007 the Washington, D.C., newspaper The Hill surveyed current and former senators and reported that 22 of those who were serving in 2002 sent word they had read the full report. Since it would be embarrassing now to admit not reading it before voting on such an important matter, we suspect that number is inflated. But whether the true number is six or 22, it's clear that only a small minority of the 100-member Senate read this important intelligence summary in full.

Among those who later admitted to not reading the full report were Democratic Sens. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Chris Dodd, and Republican Sens. Sam Brownback and John McCain. All of them voted in favor of the war resolution, and all later ran for their respective party's 2008 presidential nomination.

You wonder why you get strong pushback on your articles? This is a perfect example.

Andrew, that's not what you said. And I quote:

I never said that Bush was alleged to have "pressured" the intel staff into making false reports... The Congress NEVER SAW THE REPORTS UNTIL AFTER THE VOTE!

That's just flat-out not true. Members were fully capable of reading the full NIE before their votes as my link shows but you seem to fail to understand. Bob Graham did in fact read it and the qualifiers he read caused him to rethink his vote. The fact of the matter is that the vote for war with Iraq in the fall of 2002 was the politically expedient decision to make. It was only after the war turned for the bad in late '04 did the prevailing political winds begin to shift and with it the Democratic charge of "we was duped."

Andrew, if the intel was available for review, and the members chose not to review it for themselves and make an informed decision, then they, and you cannot claim that they were fooled into support.  They are responsible for their own actions, or lack of in this case.  The intel was there for them to see.

Try again

More than five years after the initial invasion of Iraq, the Senate Intelligence Committee has finally gone on the record: the Bush administration misused, and in some cases disregarded, intelligence which led the nation into war. The two final sections of a long-delayed and much anticipated "Phase II" report on the Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence, released on Thursday morning, accuse senior White House officials of repeatedly misrepresenting the threat posed by Iraq....

Still, the breadth of the Committee's citations of examples in which the Bush administration's comments were not supported by intelligence could reignite public dissatisfaction over the war. According to a release from Rockefeller's office that was provided to The Huffington Post, these examples include:

-- Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

-- Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

-- Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

-- Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

-- The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

-- The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

"It has been four years since the Committee began the second phase of its review," Sen. Dianne Feinstein wrote in her note attached to the report. "The results are now in. Even though the intelligence before the war supported inaccurate statements, this Administration distorted the intelligence in order to build its case to go to war. The Executive Branch released only those findings that supported the argument, did not relay uncertainties, and at times made statements beyond what the intelligence supported."

nice add-on, Pamela....of course, ole Bill and the rest would like to have called the democrats traitors, for refusing to go along.....Bush and his cronies are the real traitors, and, that's just the frickin' truth....they don't care about you...It's a for-profit war game...

While terminal stupidity and cravenness are indeed oft-times in the job qualifications for Congress, none of that relieves members from their responsibilities to act responsibly and actually carry out the duties incumbent on them as the people's representatives. Contrary to public perceptions intelligence gathering and analysis is not akin to detective work in many respects. The fact remains that there was litlle separating the intel gathered by the CIA (little new since '98) and that of other nations both allies and in the region regarding Saddam. Where the differences lay is in the proper response to him. In the end that's a public policy decision, if you will a judgment call and history's judgment call vis-a-vis the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power will not be written for some years.

While terminal stupidity and cravenness are indeed oft-times in the job qualifications for Congress...

Tee hee, there's total agreement from me on that Bill!! 

AllsGood...I read your comment several times and still it made no sense. It reminded me of a "word Mobius". And your statement that the Republican party is not one of racism and exclusion holds no water since you will not find Dem's or liberals in such groups such as the KKK,White Supremacists.American Nazi Party etc.,etc.,etc,. As far as the labels of African American.Mexican American,etc. I do agree that they are over used but also many are too sensitive to the application of such titles, Lets say you are describing a car to some one, if you just say"car" then that is too vague by far, OK the n it's a blue car, still to vague but your getting warm, now you say it's a blue Chevy 2door. Now you know the make up of the car. Sometimes being acknowledged as an African American, Mexican American etc. can be a label that is not just that, it is an acknowledgement of the fact that so many different races can be Americans and live in one nation and live peacefully and respectful of each other. I am a Native American-German American that label tells of my genetics and cultures that I come from and is not a derisive label, it is who I am! Remember this...We are all one race, the human race no matter what the religious, partisan hacks try to tell you to divide us all.

AllsGood In further response to your erroneous claim that the Republican party is not white and racist...did you ever see any video footage of McCain/Palin rallies? Those rallies where Red,white and blue to be sure, RED necks,WHITE faces and BLUE hair! I recorded some of them on DVD and paused and zoomed in on ares to find blacks or any other races, there where very,very,very few. And do you think for one bloody second that at the rallies where the Palinites yelled "kill him" and "terrorist" that if there where even an equal number of blacks, that those rallies wouldn't have erupted into a miniature race war? You should do more research into YOUR claim that the Republican party is not racist, I know not a single Democrat that is racist or prejudice in any manner, that is further proof and that is enough for me.

Wow! get a grip AllsGood! your going to blow a vein on your forehead! Do you ever get tired of being so wrong? For your information I read and watch more than just the Dem or liberal sites or publications, I read as much as I can to get ALL the information so I can havea LOGICAL viewpoint on all things, why can't you do the same before opening up your cake hole and embarrassing yourself in public? Change your name because I see nothing Alls GOOD about you, according to your comments. And why don't you find a Right Wing site to spew YOUR hateful garbage on! this is a site for ALL opinions. Deal with it or deal yourself out.

The fundamentals of the Republican Party are strong...my friends

Could you explain what those fundamentals are?

The italics were intended to convey sarcasm, but in Andrew's words, I guess some would be:

abuse, insults, persecution and accusations of treason in a cynical display of demagoguery by chicken-hawks, hacks, and scoundrels

In my own words I would have to say their culture war message is alive and well...just much SMALLER than it once was. 

Oh, I see.  I'm pretty sure that Mr Obama spoke about working together.  It'd be good if we stopped pounding on each other and moved ahead, I think.

Son, I was once as idealistic as you in that statement, but for the record, some of my idealism came back at around 11:00 pm on November the 4th, 2008:)

Well, I'm older than dirt and have had idealism come and go and come and go.  I'm choosing to attempt to get us all working together instead of advocating shooting politicians.  It feels better, that's for sure.

I wish I had some faith in that, but the situation has deteriorated quickly and now with the "3 largest banks" situation....I am not sure we have the will, as a nation, to make the immediate repairs that are neccesary to turn back from the direction our congress and Fed have choosen (for whatever damn reason) to push our country in.

It is dire.  It becomes more so with each DAY. The luke warm water is way to soothing for most.................not even smartsy politically savy night time commentators feel speaking out would be useful, and they couldn't be more wrong.

It is time to talk forthrightly and without reserve.  Our country is being taken from us and January 20th is too far away.

What repairs do you think are necessary?

CNN.com - Americans may be held as 'enemy combatants,' appeals ...

Newsvine - 3 'superbanks' now dominate industry

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment

http://www.americanfreedomcampaign.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=42

These are some of the places where the answer to your question is regarding necessary, but it would be nice to list them all for you.  I am unemployed, and will have to move soon to find a job, but my son is graduating soon and we can't leave yet.  I worry about losing our medical card, and my transmission just went out, making getting a job even more difficult.  Now the dryer has broken down.  these are the little things that make for a very large problem.  I can't take a minimum job because my student loans will come out of deferment, and they are to high to cover with minimum wage.  I am not getting any younger, and am losing time to put some kind of a plan together if I live to be of an age to retire...but that is looking undoable too. But most of all, i do not want to see this country become a place that my kids can't live in with out a good lawyer, if indeed the right to an attorney remains.  never mind that we couldn't afford an attorney right now if I needed one, and I could probably use one if I really thought about  it.

At any rate.......my story is common now.  And it shouldn't be, not in this country.

It seems simple.  Republicans want small government.  Democrats want big government.  Democrats are anti-environmental because global warnming is a human cause, and democrats pay kids to have kids.  Republicans respect life, but do not want kids to hop on someone else to raise their kid.

Republicans like large banks, no regulations, and subservience. I can prove mine, and you can only spout rheteric.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1525/is_/ai_18646399  Just look for Newt

Republicans Blast President Bush on Environment

You distract me and I find it boring now.

"It seems simple. Republicans want small government"

If that is the case, why has the government grown under every republican President since Eisenhower and Clinton shrank the government....and why have all the wars in the last 40 years started under republican presidents?

The fundamentals of the Core republican party have never been stronger, you are absolutely right....to bad the rest of the party doesn't know that.

watch as they leave our White House....just how many executive landmines they lay.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/browse.html

The fundamental attitudes and McCarthyistic Tactics of the Republican Party are pathetic boring, old and sad. When are these people gonna grow up and stop acting like adolescent crybaby’s?

brian... I guarantee nothing is as simple as YOU think it is. To imagine the divide in our country is solely based on a few black and white ideals is to be tragically narrow minded.

A couple things..

The fundamentals of the Republican Party are strong...my friends..

Here's my version: The fundamentals of the Republican Party are strong...my fellow prisoners..

It seems simple. Republicans want small government. Democrats want big government.

Republicans may want it, but they don't ever deliver it:

George W. Bush rode into Washington almost eight years ago astride the horse of smaller government. He will leave it this winter having overseen the biggest federal budget expansion since Franklin Delano Roosevelt seven decades ago.

"We have now presided over the largest increase in the size of government since the Great Society," said Sen. John McCain, the Republican candidate vying to replace Mr. Bush in the White House, during the first presidential debate.

That, in fact, was an understatement. No president since FDR — who offered a New Deal to pull the nation out of the Great Depression and then fought World War II — has presided over as rapid a growth in government when measured as a percentage of the total economy.

The last Republican that said he would bring us smaller government gave us the largest government since the last world war. Sorry, but post-Bush and after the Republican congress that Bush oversaw, conservatives have lost all credibility on "fiscal conservatism" and "small government." You guys are going to have to accept the fact that these two issues belong to Democrats now, and if you ever want to see them happen, you better have a change of heart at the voting booth.

Democrats are anti-environmental because global warnming is a human cause

Every government on the planet including ours agrees that global warming is the result of humans polluting the earth. Even McCain does. This is basically fact now, it's long past time to move past this.

Republicans respect life

Republicans want to control women's bodies, not a lot more. If conservatives actually cared about and respected life, they wouldn't overwhelmingly support wars or the death penalty. Hypocrites much?

For all the woe is me and blame everything on the republicans my life sux because of them..well I can hardly wait to see who you blame when Obama starts putting in place his economic plans...you people are in for a ride...and if you think the markets are re-acting badly now wait till Obama implements his economic plans and we go deeper in debt...the middle class will be drained and the industrial elitiists will get richer no matter who is in office...Obama is nothing special...just a black man in the white house with the same elitist ideals...what fools

Paul needs to be angry at Bush not at republican core values...and don't tell me the dems are going to be better because if all you base that on is Clinton then you need to go back and look at jimmy carter...Clinton happened to be pres. during a boon in the internet...which we come to find out was almost entirely a shell game...look at all the cooked books after that caused alot of havoc in the markets...reagan had the keating scandal and Clinton the worldcom and internet bust..these politicians are all the same..republicans don't want to control womens bodies you moron they want to protect the life of the unborn...apparently your mother supported the right to life...

no, they want to contro women........they tried to control Palin:)  that didn't work either. hehehehehehhe

Exactly who are "they" do you know what the heck you are even talking about..and what does Palin have to do with Obama and his supposed wonderful economic plans...geez man get with the program..to blame all the woes in your life on a political party is asinine..pull yourself up and work hard and make something of yourself without the govt. intervening in every aspect of your life...how pathetic the sheeple are...

Brian,Brian, Brian...WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!

Mr. Tenny,

Thanks for the 3.16.

Just what I was going to say but probably wouldn't be as nice about it.

how pathetic the sheeple are...

I love how the GOP declares itself the party of free thinkers and the Democrats a party of mindless lemmings. I loved your candidate's campaign, especially his commercials. I don't remember the message exactly, but it was something like "Don't vote for Obama, he was once seen having dinner in the same room as a man who talked to Saddam Hussein's third cousin's barber... 9/11!!!"

I had to sleep with the lights on that night, I was terrified.

Since the liberals seem to be snorting rose pedals, maybe the liberals and their over controlling governmentalistic ways will eliminate roses.

Throwing Bush out while denying McCain and the Republicans control of the White House and Congress .. 8 years too long

Listening to the Republicans whine and cry about that .... going on a week now

Doing both in the same week while making history by electing the 1st African American President in our nation's history.... Priceless

For everything else, including ongoing whining, crying and complaining by "McPalin, whinin and cryin types; there's the election scoreboard

you betcha ;)

Brian-657672

maybe the liberals and their over controlling governmentalistic ways

Seems to me it was Bush who decided to eliminate habeas corpus and the 4th amendment. He wants to spy on his own people. How does that make the liberals over controlling? Are you telling me that Bush is a liberal?

rush limbaugh was on the radio on wednesday blaming newly announced layoffs on obama, and saying "america, i hope all your joe the plumbers lose their jobs."

-Its strange, I've got mates who are attributing the 400+ point drop in the stockmarket following the election to BHO. I had no response because it just seemed so far out of touch with reality. I guess it's easy to use some sort of post-hoc fallacy then come to terms with the fact that their clown-prince spent nearly 8 years pushing us to this point, and like a stereotypical-trustfund-frat boy, managed to disappear when the buck was passing his way.

How do they suppose that Obama did it?  Magic?  Telepathy?..... .....REAGANOMICS?!?

Probably some moorish incantation hidden in the back pages of the Koran. SIM SIM SALABIM...

-Its strange, I've got mates who are attributing the 400+ point drop in the stockmarket following the election to BHO. I had no response because it just seemed so far out of touch with reality. I guess it's easy to use some sort of post-hoc fallacy then come to terms with the fact that their clown-prince spent nearly 8 years pushing us to this point, and like a stereotypical-trustfund-frat boy, managed to disappear when the buck was passing his way.

everything bush @!$%#ed up, from 9/11 to the financial crisis, they blamed on clinton's policies. with bush still in office, they are blaming obama for anything thats happening after 11pm tuesday night.

Rush is not my spokesman.  Obama is blaming Bushes failed policies for bad economic times.  What a cop-out.  Hold on to your hats!  This unfit person will cost you plenty.  I hope you are happy.

your distracting like spam

They think he is gonna stop the inauguration with that same recycled lawsuit!!

It must be a joke no one is that stupid that they really believes that Obama is not a citizen and has been completely vetted.

The unfit person for the last 8 years has already cost us EVERYTHING!! Money, world respect, liberties, privacy, dignity, jobs.....Anything Obama does from here can only go up.

"Brian-657672

Rush is not my spokesman. Obama is blaming Bushes failed policies for bad economic times. What a cop-out. Hold on to your hats! This unfit person will cost you plenty. I hope you are happy

firsty,

blaming obama for anything thats happening after 11pm tuesday night.

Kinda like blaming Reagan for where we are today. Bush has taken all the blame for the last 8 years. "that one" gets the blame for the next 4.

Bush sought the presidency, and Repuglicans did not recognize the failure that Dubya really was.  Bush was no more than a muppet handled by Cheney and Halliburton and dare I say it, the Carlisle Group.  When was the last time we had a Democrat who was not an intelligent, considerate, motivated person?  Two of the last three Repuglicans could not have finished the High School version of Trivial Pursuit.

Repuglicans are right to be afraid, because the real Real Americans now know that Democrats are the party that takes care of Real American needs.

-Its strange, I've got mates who are attributing the 400+ point drop in the stockmarket following the election to BHO. I had no response because it just seemed so far out of touch with reality.

Well now you've got one: the DJA dropped over 5,000 points in the runup to the election, and then the day after, it continued to drop. Then tell them to do the math.

"rush limbaugh was on the radio on wednesday blaming newly announced layoffs on obama, and saying "america, i hope all your joe the plumbers lose their jobs."

Rush Limbaugh is another Republican self destructive Idiot. I guess most of them have gotten what they wanted after the last eight years, with the stock market crash and so many people out of work for months now. What are these people so vehemently protecting? An obvious failed America? With unemployment rates as high as they are, do this people like seeing America being destroyed starting from the knees. Wake up you guys America is falling apart.

 You look at the posts on this blog from so many OBVIOUS Republicans. Get your damn heads out of the sand and look around. Is this what you want for your country? Our kids cant get work to pay their student loans. The ones just starting out CAN”T even get student loans because the banks don’t have the money. People can’t pay their mortgages or even put food on the table for their family’s because they’ve lost their jobs and there’s no work. You people are fighting over semantics, calling people terrorists and this country is falling apart. Get your damn priorities straight. A lousy birth certificate is more important then this country’s survival? This is exactly why we are, where we are today the federal government has been spending the last eight years fighting over BS.  While the rest of us out here are finding it harder and harder to survive. Don’t you people care?  Is your own personal agenda more important then your country’s. You call people terrorist’s and unpatriotic while you sit there practicing what your accusing others of. The more I read from some the more I see is your looking for this country’s destruction. Where do you plan to live when it all said and done?  I don’t know about some of you but this is home to me. I want to see people feed their family’s have a home to live in and see High school kids go on to collage and work. What the hell are you protecting???????   Real simple if we don’t have a middle class in this country the rich will no longer have a source of income either. What are they gonna do play the stock market when there are no companies to invest in?    

Lisa,  they will reign over the working class, and there will be no middle class. Are you ready to go the rest of the way?

this is what Bush is doing right now, look for it. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/browse.html
this is what he has already done  americanfreedomcampaign.org
and this is where we are headed if we don't wake up  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

It used to scare me...but it doesn't anymore...I am not afraid anymore and I will not be quiet anymore regardless of how many blind party loyalist try to distract us. 

I call my reps/sens with lists of what I expect and I will continue
I have pulled what little money I have out of large bank (months ago) and use a small community bank
I buy generic, no brand names unless the brand starts acting like they care about America
I speak the truth to those who never are called on thier exclusive language (at home and eveyrwhere)
I read everything I can by the people who take chances to inform with reason and facts.
and I prepare to support boycotts which should be organizing now, (i haven't seen any yet but talk about it a lot)

This is dire now, and it shows no signs of slowing.

Protecting implies a defense.......those who are not simply and blindly loyal, are on the offense.

they will reign over the working class, and there will be no middle class. Are you ready to go the rest of the way?

Ah good, so Republicans are only leading us back to the Dark Ages then.  I thought with their warmongering they would have started a war that would have knocked us back to the stone age, but if we are only regressing to a time where the nobility oppressed the simple man, and forced them to be simply a working class to fund and feed the wealthy then I would feel much more secure if the Republicans get back into power

did you see that some of these morons have already started "Impeach Obama" campaigns? 

He isn't even in office yet.

Unfortunately this is the U.S. and these people have the same rights as the rest of us.

No one is whining about the few Republicans left, just the paranoid, emotion-based, groundless lies, innuendo and misrepresesntations that are *still* streaming from the mouths and fingertips from those of you on the right that just don't get it. Posts like yours actually...

It's why you lost, you know

Making them understand that is a waste of time. Their logic is like the guy hitting himself on the head with a hammer. guy wlks by says why are you doing that. He says because it feel so good when I stop.

 Russia's response is to place SRBM systems along the Polish (NATO) border.  They are already playing him...........

Your boy GW is still in office. If he is a commander in chief he should have had something to say/do about it. Besides, I think the situation would be magnitudes more contentious, if not dangerous, if Palin/McCain had won.

Russia's response is to place SRBM systems along the Polish (NATO) border.  They are already playing him...........  

That has got to be one of the most irrational things I've ever read. 

1.  The missile shield was billed as being against "rogue states and terrorists".  If this was the case, the missiles would probably be more usefully deployed much farther south, like about Hungary.  The decision to deploy these missile in Poland was either to piss off Russia, or to help Poland economically, or because Poland was the only country stupid enough to let them be deployed there, or a combination of all of the above.

2. Since the incredibly bad decision to do this was made by Mr Bush, (no surprise, he has a real talent for making incredibly bad and irrational decisions), the Russians really have no choice but to respond, or look extremely weak.

Calling this playing Mr Obama is just plain brain dead.  Next thing we know, you'll be blaming Mr Cheney shooting his hunting partner on Mr Obama.

Funny thing about the missle defense shield: it doesn't even work that well.  At best, any missle gets a 33% chance to hit.  Good against one or two missles, not so good about one or two thousand.

Until the Republican party at large distances thenselves from the ranting of Rush and company, they continue to open themselves up.  I find it funny how Rev. Wright can be a talking point, but Rush can't.

Andrew you cannot be for real to say Al Gore "Gore was a class-act and left politics to try and save humankind from climate change, and all the GOP could do was dispatch jerks to hound the guy for being classy about Bush v Gore and dropping it.... WOW....now THAT is being a whiny little bunch o' B's" thats the funniest fricken line I've seen on this thread..you need to be a stand up comedian...Please Al Gore save me from the mean human race that is killing us..how absurd

I think it should be flipped also.

Ooo! Sneaky too ain't cha, don't cha know?

When my kid starts whining at me about how unfair life is.....I look at him, and then I continue on with what I was doing, he generally then does something that hurts no one but himself.

Ignore this, and just for fun tell the first advertiser on the first newscast that you see paying attention to these whiner:) that you aint' buyin theri @!$%# no more.

Well Andrew the people wanted change and i sure as hell hope it is for the better of our country..but frankly Obama is just another politician and said what he needed to say to get in office and a whole lot of people bought into his BS...I can't wait for my federal income tax check from the rich folks cause I was to lazy to get off my ass and work hard to better myself.sic. you folks are delussional if you think Obama is a different kind of politician...I can't wait to see what happens...my fingers are crossed for something good but my gut tells me there is going to be a big cow paddy with a note of remorse for the death of the middle class...

I can't wait for my federal income tax check from the rich folks cause I was to lazy to get off my ass and work hard to better myself.

O.k. let's break this down. People who collect welfare are not bettering themselves. So, making more money equals bettering yourself. So, you define your personal value by the amount of money you make.

I go to college to learn, not to prepare me to get a job. When I get a job, I will be doing something I like which will challenge me and hopefully be a learning experience. Making money is not my goal, though I will make money, more than likely a substantial amount of it.

Seems like you're more focused on the destination (money) than the journey (learning). If you base your happiness on materialistic things, you'll never be happy. I'm thankful that I have the opportunity to live out my dreams and accomplish my goals and am not forced to be on welfare. If that doesn't make you happy, then more money wont either.

If you base your happiness on materialistic things, you'll never be happy.

Very good point Im. Sadly, there are many people who will never learn that lesson. I admit to liking my creature comforts, but it's those comforts (and my family) that make me happy. Surprisingly, there are many people who slave all their lives in pursuit of money only to realize they missed out on their children's lives. Happily for me, I figured out long ago where my priorities are... I would give up a whole lot of things to spend a day with my son. Fortunately, I don't have to give up more than a day's work for that pleasure :-)

baachus:No what I said is that Obama got a bigger mandate than Bush ever had,

Bush didn't have a mandate, Obama doesn't have a mandate. 52% of the vote is not a mandate. YOU can call it a mandate, you can call it a fudge sundae, I don't care, but it's not a mandate.

For some reason, bordering on insanity, the political left thinks that are a majority faction in this country. 22%, TWENTY TWO PERCENT, of the voters in Tuesday's election self-idetified as liberal to the exit pollsters, which is less than the conservative percentage by a third and half of the percentage of people who call themselves moderates.

If you want to see Barack Obama have a successful term, and maybe be reelected, you should take a vow of silence for the next four years and let him go about his business without your self destructive backseat cheerleading.

john, it's your wish, to hear the repubs dictating, framing what happens that bothers me....you guys speak with such authority and moral airs, trying to define how us all should be thinking....that's what really bothers me about you...you're just like them.. you're going to tell us ignorant people, who question you, just how things are going to be, and

... it's really selfish, and self-serving, to DEMAND control and framing of the debate...you've not earned such authority, so why don't you see the ass that you're showing....the emperor has no clothes...

You are talking nonsense. The only thing I am 'demanding' is a recognition by the most liberal part of the Democratic Party that they are a minority faction in the American population.

Why all this hissyfitting about the Republicans playing politics? That is what these people do for cripes sake.

And what really bothers me is people like the creator of this column who is a RABID partisan, who has spent countless hours spreading and nurturing negative information on Newsvine about the Republicans, particularly Palin, when he doesn't even know whether the stories are true.

And what really bothers me is people like the creator of this column who is a RABID partisan

Pot, meet kettle...

a refund of payroll tax is not welfare... nor is a tax cut for working people.... nor are tax credits for job creation

no, but when the government essentially gives money to companies for those companies' decision to hire staff, it is a form of fascism. the republicans were screaming about "socialism," but the most expensive and intrusive and depraved applications of socialism in america are those of fascist socialism (i dont think i need to give examples of those kinds of countries in history). that is when the government becomes a partner of the corporation. the corporation gets away with paying workers less than they are worth and the government picks up the slack. this is a direct affront to the idea of the free market, which in reality doesnt exist.

i dont object to government helping the people. but the corporation is not a person. the government should not be so actively protecting these corporations. the government should be protecting the interests of the people working for those corporations. what is currently happening is that our government is treating the corporation like a highly paid middle man, given the responsibility of taking what the government gives them and passing the savings or the benefits on to the workers. OBVIOUSLY, the corporation has failed, repeatedly, unapologetically and without recourse, to serve the interests of its workers in a manner consistent with the ideas behind tax breaks, salary offsets, etc.

when a corporation fails to pay its workers adequately, when it fails its social resposibility to its community, its staff and its consumers, the government should treat those failures with efficient regulation and the rule of law. we @!$%# and moan about the so-called bad effects on society of everything from drug use to prostitution to the kinds of clothes we wear, who we marry, and what we let our kids watch on tv, but we meantime let the corporation get away with refusing health insurance to workers working fewer than 35 hrs a week, refusing to provide cost-of-living/inflation pay increases (while other corporations manipulate costs of living up), and refusing to provide anything close to similar profit-driven variation in income for workers as CEOs and executives receive.

Oh yes, simply brilliant lmao. Do any of you people know anything about Rahm Emanuel? Just a little bit? He's hardly a longtime "friend and ally" of Obama as the prolix Mr. Spagnoli claims. He's a Congressman whose claim to fame rests on being one of Bill Clinton's leg-breakers in the Clinton White House. Now don't get me wrong, every WH needs an enforcer and hatchet-man. Karl Rove pretty much served in that capacity for Bush. But that's not the type of man or woman you want as your COS. The COS's primary job is to ensure that the president is getting the best array of opinions and advice he can to advance the president's agenda. The only possible reason I could see for appointing a hyper-partisan like Rahm Emanuel as COS is some kind of mistaken belief that he's going to be a bridge to "Blue Dog" Democrats who along with the Republicans will help beat back the forces most likely to make Obama a one-term wonder: the highly partisan, lefty leadership of the House Democratic caucus. Yeah, that's "change we can believe in." What rubbish.

when people say that obama chose an ally, we dont mean that he's been an ally, it means that he'll be one, in the position he's been hired for.

Andrew, I didn't say Emanuel was a leftwinger I'm saying that his style is confrontational and that's normally not what a POTUS should be looking for in a Chief of Staff whose primary job is akin to that of an executive secretary:

In 1991 he joined Clinton's presidential campaign. Emanuel wowed the team from the start, opening a spigot on needed campaign funds, and after Clinton's election helped program a picture-perfect inaugural. He nabbed the plum White House position of political director.

Then he started shooting off his mouth. There was the time he rapped on a conference table to get "Lloyd's" attention. ("We were all aghast," recalls one Clinton aide, noting that even Lloyd Bentsen's wife still called the Treasury Secretary "Senator." ) He had a very public run-in with the late Senator Patrick Moynihan, who accused him of being the source of an anonymous quote that "we'll roll all over [Moynihan] if we have to" on welfare reform. (Emanuel denied saying it.) Most damaging were Emanuel's battles with Hillary Clinton loyalists, who accused him of leaks about the travel office episode.

A year after Clinton took office, Emanuel was demoted. "He was very upset," recalls Zeke. "He thought he was going to get kicked out of the White House." He didn't, and neither did he quit. Instead, Emanuel regrouped, helping lead the charge on key Clinton initiatives, including the crime bill, the assault weapons ban, and NAFTA. "He was constantly on the offense," says Begala. Emanuel planned to leave after the 1996 election, but Clinton promoted him to take George Stephanopoulos's spot as senior advisor for policy and strategy.

Still, Emanuel had political aspirations of his own, which necessitated some financial security. So in late 1998 he traded in Clinton as his boss for Bruce Wasserstein, a major Democratic donor and Wall Street financier. "Money is not the be-all and end-all for him," says brother Zeke. "But he knew he needed money so that wouldn't be a problem while he was doing public service." Over a 2 1/2-year period he helped broker deals-often using political connections-for Wasserstein Perella.

According to congressional financial disclosures, he earned more than $18 million during that period.

Rahm Emanuel is a talented man of enormous ambition of his own. That's not what you're looking for in a COS if you're interested in a smooth operation and good relations with Congress. That's why the best COS's normally are politicians at the end of their careers who are well-respected on both sides of the aisle like Leon Panetta for Clinton and Howard Baker for Reagan.

Obama doesn't need good relations with Congress anymore than Bush needed good relations with his. That's obviously the benefit of one party controlling both. Besides, if even Lindsey Graham thinks Rham was a good choice, that's a pretty good endorsement from a somewhat honest Republican who actually knows the man.

I've heard even the WSJ has oped in on it and blessed the pick.

Bill-

Obama's aides, as well as congressional Democrats, dismiss the Republican attacks, pointing to Emanuel's personal friendships with key Republicans. Among those GOP friends: Josh Bolten, the current White House chief of staff; Illinois Rep. Ray LaHood; and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of John McCain's best friends.

"This is a wise choice by President-elect Obama," Graham said in a statement released Thursday afternoon. "Rahm knows Capitol Hill and has great political skills. He can be a tough partisan but also understands the need to work together. He is well-suited for the position of White House Chief of Staff.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/167949

Ray LaHood retired from Congress and Lindsey Graham has almost no working relationship with Emanuel due to the separate branches of the Congress in which they serve.

Tenny's assertion that "Obama doesn't need good relations with Congress anymore than Bush needed good relations with his" is breathtaking both with respect to history and with respect to President Bush. Almost all that Bush got accomplished domestically was done in the first year of his administration vis-a-vis the tax cuts and "No Child Left Behind". And while the Democrats griped about some out of the "no drug reimportation" measures in the Medicare Drug Bill overall it was a program they could get behind. Further, Bush's attempt to establish a private accounts option for SS was killed in the Congress while the GOP enjoyed majorities both in the House and Senate. And once again, if one doesn't think the president needs good relations with the members of his own party in Congress you can ask Jimmy Carter about that one.

Question; can you tell me in 25 words or less what makes conservatives on the attack so aggressive?  Or is it protective?

In my experience the one who is attacking (in this manner) is generally afraid of something, usually when you follow the their fears, you find their weakness....at least that is what they have been doing..........following our fear.  It's harder now, becasue many have decided not to fear them.

KL-

what makes conservatives on the attack so aggressive?

Following in your thought, I would say you have to watch what they attack about. Mr Craig of Idaho was really big on anti homosexual laws. Right up until he was busted trying to pick up a guy in an airport bathroom. Mr Foley of Florida was really big on issues of child abuse, (which I strongly supported) We just didn't realize at the time that Mr Foley was sending sexually explicit IM's to underage congressional pages.

If you go back to the Clinton era, you'll see Mr Gingrich leading the charge to impeach Mr Clinton for having illicit relations with an intern... while he was having an affair behind his wife's back.

Sorry KL, I went over 25 words.

you did just fine, thank you:)

Andrew -

Forget the PS.  Things seem to have changed in the interminable time it took between when I started pecking out my message and when I was finally able to press the "Post Comment" button.

The reason you didn't find anything is that there is no evidence of any sort for the claims made in this article.

rls,

Although most republicans don't like RE, Lindsay Graham came out in support of the choice today.

Andrew, I'm neither angry nor a "sore loser". If you think otherwise I suggest you listen to my appearance on Brad LeClerc's Vinecast a few weeks back or actually read my columns where I called this election weeks ago. But you're so far off base here in this article you'd be ruled out by the umpire for going out of the baselines as I've made quite clear here in my comments. If you don't like that, it's your problem and not mine.

This poster is distracting you.

...the Repubs want to frame the debates...their way or the highway....

andrew, the best way to deal with billharrison is directly and quickly. he'll usually then resort to vulgar name-calling, which can be easily deleted. the pattern is pretty consistent.

Andrew, I'm neither angry nor a "sore loser". If you think otherwise I suggest you listen to my appearance on Brad LeClerc's Vinecast a few weeks back or actually read my columns where I called this election weeks ago.

I'm going to do that when I get around to it, but I must confess I'd be far more interested to hear you on Vinecast post-election (and some other conservatives.) Forgive me for I have been burned by cigarettes and beaten by drunken conservatives for eight straight years...now I want to see them cry a little.

You shall have an exceedingly long wait in that case as I don't cry and this entire thread's premise that because some people, on both sides of the aisle, are questioning Emanuel's suitability for this job somehow amounts to an attempt to stonewall the incipient Obama administration is simply stupid. Barack Obama can appoint anyone he wants to as his Chief of Staff so long as that person is not incarcerated, under indicment or cannot get a top secret security clearance. WH staff positions are made at the pleasure of the president and are not subject to Congressional approval.

How true, newspeak is alive and well.

Waynester, what's the point of your post?  Most of the comment you posted would seem to disagree with most of the comments I've seen you post.  Not trying to give you a bad time, just interested in your thinking, honest.

Fear baby, he's interested in Fear. It is implied in every statement.

How so? I thought it summed it up pretty well. I never thought McCain was a conservative either, he was just the horse we were stuck with (sorry to the grammar sticklers out there.) And though Bush held conservative views on some things he was by no means a movement conservative and certainly wasn't a fiscal one.

It just seems to me that most of your posts were solidly behind Mr Bush and Mr McCain.  What things did Mr Bush hold conservative views on? It doesn't seem that he acted on any of them.

Strong National defense is usually considered a right of center attribute. (it wasn't always exclusive to the right, but since the Dems have shifted left...) He was pro-life, which is another one though a President doesn't have much effect on that outside of judicial appointments. Which brings me to the appointments that he made, both appear to be of the constuctionist or originalist bent, which is another thing you would expect a right of center or conservative President to do.

Yes I was strongly in support because they were the only game in town besides Obama who is way, way left of my comfort zone. I voted Romney in the primary.

..we would still be dealing with the specter of Hillary Clinton lurking around the Democrat Party seeking the White House.

Still being illiterate children, I see. Man I really hope Republicans grow up sometime over the next four years and realize that things like that quit working back in 2005, and that now they just look like idiots.

Man I really hope Republicans grow up sometime over the next four years and realize that things like that quit working back in 2005, and that now they just look like idiots.

amidst all the whining and complaining and contrived outrage, republicans and their supporters must face one truth - you cant run roughshod over constitutional and international law forever without facing any consequences. reasonable people have been trying to call the administration and the congress to account for numerous violations and crimes, to no success. these attempts were met with vigorous and unreasonable but effective resistance and counter-attacks by republicans and their supporters. in many ways, these republicans have NOTHING to @!$%# about - they brought upon this country a situation in which they could not win, and now they must deal with the democratic president whoever he or she was. you can only push people around for so long before a backlash. they should feel fortunate that we didnt elect an even more liberal person. i wish we had, actually. nevertheless, obama is in office in large part (for the most part, perhaps) because of the absolute disaster the republicans have been since 2000. you get whats coming to you.

that would give more voice to those outside those two choices. 

If you think the two parties (and it would have to be both simultaneously) are going to do anything that decreases their stranglehold on power and the electoral process, I can certainly see why you voted for Obama. Do you still believe in the tooth fairy too? [meant lightly, not derisively]

Paul William:

Using the term Democrat party is a rhetorical device, its not an example of illiteracy. Just though you'd like to know.

Idiot", "Stupid"

-I don't think those are too far off base when referring to G-dub.

AWM: Now that I think about it, this is quite a claim:

The economy starts failing as a direct result of Democrat stupidity

I don't much care for either party in and of themselves, but I'm curious  as to what specifically Dem actions put us in the @!$%#ter like this?

When Clinton was in office, he got the blame from conservatives  who he regularly went out of his way, to kiss their asses.  Now the angry white man in the office who has kissed more conservative ass is discovering that his ass kissing days are over. And now all those conservatives are sitting around angry cause there are so few left to kiss their asses.

sorry I just couldn't resist. I like asking forgiveness more then asking permission:) 

AWM, I am probably more conservative than you, since you choose to support the "borrow and spend" liberals currently in the White House.

Your attempt to focus people's attention on "the surge" is a weak attempt to draw attention away from the fact that the Iraq war is probably the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of this country.

Of course people called Mr Bush an idiot, and stupid and total failure.  He chose to look that way while actively working to destroy our economy, our Constitutional rights and our military while in the employ of big business.  I challenge you to describe one way in which he acted like a conservative.  

Your statement that "the economy starts failing as a direct result of Democratic stupidity" shows either your lack of reasoning ability, or your totally partisan denial of reality.   The home lending fiasco which Mr Bush took complete credit for in his campaign in 2004 can't be blamed on the Congress of 2006 which took office after the whole mess started going down the toilet. 

I'm really tempted to say "love it or leave it", but that would be too easy.

Well said, well spoken !!!

What I think is the most ridiculous thing of all is that Congress (full of Democrats and Republicans alike, including BOTH McCain and Obama) waited for GWB to suggest a bailout before they decided to swoop in and "save America."

Failed policies?  They didn't come up with anything better.

It is a fact that only this Dem congress, and the mainstream media, have lower approval ratings than GWB.

You spent 8 years hating a man who was President, you forfeited any right to complain or criticise someone who doesn't support Obama.

Amen!

J.

I doubt we'll see novels or movies fantasizing about the assasination of Obama as we did of Bush.  We will see principled oppostion painted as racism, of that you can be sure.

I doubt we'll see novels or movies fantasizing about the assasination of Obama

-I'm certain we will. The country has plenty of KKK members/Neo Nazi's wayne.

Any of them have Hollywood backing? Do you suppose any of works of these folks will be promoted by the media? I thought not.

I guess it depends on the nature of the work. Why wouldn't it be promoted if its an honest attempt at a thought provoking film? I would have watched it if it were about BHO, GWB or any three letter acronymed president.  Are you talking about the British "death of a president" film? I wasn't around for JFK assassination, but you have to admit that it makes for a compelling story line.

You have entered the realm of the utterly naive if you think for one microsecond that a film or book that contemplates the assasination of Barack Obama would get any backing or promotion from anyone. If it ever saw the light of day the author would likely be prosecuted for a hate crime, the 1st amendment notwithstanding (yelling fire in a crowded theatre and incitement of violence arguments would be plentiful)

The JFK argument doesn't apply, he was actually assasinated. And there was no movie or novel about it beforehand.

Wow wayne, that's an awful lot of hypothetical thinking. How many studio heads do you know that would refuse to back a movie about BHO but turn around and make one about GWB or vice versa?  You can assert that the JFK parallel doesn't apply, but that doesn't mean your assertion is correct. Of course people would be repulsed by the idea of a movie suggesting that GWB might be assassinated in the same way they would be repulsed by a movie suggesting that BHO might be assassinated, but judging by the foiled assassination plot it is a real topic that we do have to grapple with (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081027/ap_on_el_pr/skinhead_plot). And I absolutely would watch a movie about either topic as long as it was attempting to make an accurate portrayal of potential events (a la Stone's JFK or United 93/whatever it was called)  and not some partisan-hatchet-job-jerkoff-fantasy.

People seem to enjoy movies/TV that put a hypothetical twist on reality (fiction). If the British film is the one you are talking about, that posits a hypothetical event and the public's reaction to it, I don't see how there is any difference between having BHO as president or GWB. I'm not going to defend the British film that I think you might be talking about, because I am not familiar with it in the slightest bit. But if you want to focus on the liberal media persecution complex, and pretend that it is the end-all motivation behind any movie involving our last president then there's no point in having this discussion.

, that's an awful lot of hypothetical thinking

 Yes it was because the original comment was a prediction and the follow on comments were hypothetical as well. The faux doc and book about GWB asassination were in the manner of hoping for it to happen, like it would be a good thing. That was unconscionable and tasteless will very likely not happen with Obama. That was my point. They were not about foiled assasination attempts, which is different thing altogether

Stone's JFK actually had little truth in it, and that you think it was an accurate portrayal speaks volumes.

and that you think it was an accurate portrayal speaks volumes.

Where exactly did I say that?  I never intended to do any such thing. I was using it as an example of a film extrapolating from real events, I used the words "portrayal of potential events."  I think I was pretty clear in what I wrote, there is no way anyone who wasn't on flight 93 could really know what happened, but I never for would hold that or JFK out as historical accounts, nor did I. They are nothing but attempts to portray what maybe happened in a historically accurate manner (historically accurate is a bit of a term of art when it comes to film, it is not necessarily supposed to convey factual accuracy down to any specific level of detail but relies on some real event/events as the background or underlying storyline--just to make sure we're speaking the same language) The only difference with a GWB or BHO picture would be that the assassination never happened.

The faux doc and book about GWB asassination were in the manner of hoping for it to happen

like i've asked before, is this the British one? or are we talking about two different things?

This is where speaking in absolutes will distort the conversation.I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with making a movie about a political figure, our president being assassinated, if it's portrayed in a "what if" sort of way, as opposed to a "this is what needs to happen for our country" sort of way.  Like how the public will react, how other countries will react, how the rest of the government will react etc..., but if it's just a hack-film made to give ultra liberals an erection (in the case of aGWB assassination) then I agree, just in the same way that a movie that were made to promote an Obama assassination as some white-supremecy masturbatory fantasy would be just as tasteless. Why you think there is no chance for an Obama movie to ever be made, is what I don't understand. in fact, I think the story could be more compelling if it were based upon an Obama assassination just because of the recent adulation overseas.

You and your liberal friends have done nothing, NOTHING to try and unite the country.I doubt we'll see novels or movies fantasizing about the assasination of Obama as we did of Bush.

No, instead we'll see real-life skin heads actually trying to kill Obama. In fact we already have.

Son:

Your attempt to focus people's attention on "the surge" is a weak attempt to draw attention away from the fact that the Iraq war is probably the biggest foreign policy blunder in the history of this country.

No, it was an attempt to show that regardless of his decisions, even when he announced a surge AFTER the Dems were whining that we didn't have enough troops, they still criticised him.  Funny how they could have turned it around and said "See, we told you there were not enough troops.  We were right."  But no, they had to criticise the surge, and well, now they have egg on their face, because it worked.  Even Obama had to be dragged kicking and screaming into admitting that it worked.

I challenge you to describe one way in which he acted like a conservative. 

Uhm,  cutting taxes.

He chose to look that way while actively working to destroy our economy, our Constitutional rights and our military while in the employ of big business. 

Your turn.  Show me an example for each of these claims where Bush acted without the support of Democrats in Congress. 

Your statement that "the economy starts failing as a direct result of Democratic stupidity" shows either your lack of reasoning ability, or your totally partisan denial of reality.   The home lending fiasco which Mr Bush took complete credit for in his campaign in 2004 can't be blamed on the Congress of 2006 which took office after the whole mess started going down the toilet. 

First, though a quick read of my statement may have appeared to blame this on the 06 Dems, the fact of the matter is this problem goes back to the Carter Administration, the Clinton Administration, and Democrats of the 109th Congress. The Bush administration warned about the risk of failure, and a bill cosponsored by McCain in 05 to regulate FM/FM never made it out of committee under threat of filibuster by the Dems.  Now, show me where Bush took credit for it in 04.  Sub prime lending started during the Clinton Administration under threat of Janet Reno, and intimidation of ACORN.

I'm really tempted to say "love it or leave it", but that would be too easy.

I've paid my debt to this country.  Read my profile.

Angryman.........try Paul Bremer who is Bush and Cheney's man on the early scene in Iraq....I'm not doing the work for you.  If your as upstanding as you sell it....check out page 82, of Blackwater:The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army.  You might find it very intersting, unless you want to call this guy a liar too.

Page after page of Bush screwing his country and his citizen's in the name of making himself and his friends dominators..........anyone confirm his acreage in Paraguay?

KLconsiders-

NOBODY got anything done or even tried to accomplish anything significant until GWB proposed to bailout the big banks.  And all of a sudden, WHOOSH!  In swoops Congress to "save America." 

Bull@!$%#.

I don't think I need to "do my homework" but I do think you should try some critical thinking.

Call it a hunch, but they might be waiting for the current president, Bush, to leave office.

Lord knows the last 8 went by like an eternity

Unfortunately one of the worst is now a government employee.....Paulson. In 2004 he convinced Cox and Bush to allow the banks to use the reserve funds (the funds that were meant to protect the consumer from financial c ollapse) in the market for credit derivatives and those two lunkheads signed off on it....thats why hese banks failed so fast because they had the reserve funds in play when the poop hit the group....

Paulson is an impressive historical figure, since I rate him as the greatest thief in the history of the human race.  If you recall the old James Bond movie where Goldfinger tries to break into Fort Knox, that would be a big robbery, but Paulson's heist on the US Treasury was much greater.  He took $800 billion and counting.  The Brinks Robbery which was a big historical heist netted some 1.5 million or so.  This Paulson guy is truly way over that, he is so audacious, it was an incredible robbery. 

The panache that him and Bernanke showed, going in to Bush and the dumb-dumb Democrats with this "credit is freezing up" story, its incredible.  I'd LOVE to see the movie about this heist, I'm wondering if Bernanke and him weren't tempted to break out laughing when they were pitching this to Bush.

Bush:  So ... you are sayin' its a big problem?

Bernanke:  That's right.

Paulson:  That's right, sir, uh, credit is uh ... (struggles to suppress laughter)  .. freezing up

Bernanke:  That's right, freezing up (furious glance at Paulson)

Paulson:  Real cold, real freezing (raise eyebrows at Bernanke who frowns in warning)

Bush:  (getting out checkbook) how much did you say"

Paulson:  $200 million, I mean (looks at Bernanke)

Bernanke: (cough) that's billion, right?

Paulson: Right, $200 billion, (sly smile) $600 billion, did I say 600, I meant $800 billion, that ought to do it ... out to unfreeze that credit, yes sir, unfreeze it right up

Bernanke: It's a very serious situation, sir

Paulson:  Just make the check out to me, that's right, nine zeros ...