On 3/14/11 8:03 AM, BAR wrote:


It is only amazing to those who see people's skin as their single
identifying characteristic. Most of us on the right looked past his skin
color and found out that he was a left leaning if not falling left on
the ground type of guy. We decided that we didn't want a Marxist in the
White House. However everyone else was enamored with the half white and
half black guy and you all voted for him despite our warnings, which
have come true.


1. Obama isn't a Marxist.
2. By today's right-wing extremist standards, Dwight Eisenhower and
Richard Nixon were left-leaners.
3. Your warnings? What? Vote instead for Old Man McCain and his crazy as
bat**** sidekick Sarah Palin? Bush left this country in a bloody awful
mess. Obama is at least trying to rescue it. He hasn't done enough, but
that's because of the right-wing extremists in Congress.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 08:10:24 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

He hasn't done enough, but
that's because of the right-wing extremists in Congress.

He hasn't done enough because he lacks the leadership ability to do
so. If he went on television and made a compelling case for what
needed to be done, people would get the message and congress would
fall in line. That's the way it has always been done by presidents
who *had* leadership ability. Your guy does not. His agenda is too
narrowly focused and it has cost him credibility.

On 3/14/11 10:32 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 08:10:24 -0400,
wrote:

He hasn't done enough, but
that's because of the right-wing extremists in Congress.

He hasn't done enough because he lacks the leadership ability to do
so. If he went on television and made a compelling case for what
needed to be done, people would get the message and congress would
fall in line. That's the way it has always been done by presidents
who *had* leadership ability. Your guy does not. His agenda is too
narrowly focused and it has cost him credibility.


Please, Wayne, the Republicans in Congress have made their agenda
perfectly clear. They'll go along with virtually nothing.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:36:34 -0400, Harryk
wrote:

Please, Wayne, the Republicans in Congress have made their agenda
perfectly clear. They'll go along with virtually nothing.

Like any politician they will do anything to get reelected. If their
constituency gets behind something, they'll get the message.
Unfortunately there has been no unifying leadership for a long time,
only increased partianship and divisiveness, with lots of blame to go
around.

On 3/14/11 11:27 AM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:36:34 -0400,
wrote:

Please, Wayne, the Republicans in Congress have made their agenda
perfectly clear. They'll go along with virtually nothing.

Like any politician they will do anything to get reelected. If their
constituency gets behind something, they'll get the message.
Unfortunately there has been no unifying leadership for a long time,
only increased partianship and divisiveness, with lots of blame to go
around.


What you are saying was pretty much the case a decade ago. Now, the
constituents of the right-wing Republicans in Congress only care about
themselves, not about the welfare and prosperity of the country, and the
teahadists they elected know this.

The United States has been sliding down the slope in a serious fashion
since Bush II took office. I'm not sure Obama or anyone else can stop
the slide. The only bright spot I see on the horizon is that the
Republicans are so bereft of quality candidates, they are increasingly
unlikely to regain the White House in 2012.

On Mar 14, 11:33*am, Harryk wrote:
On 3/14/11 11:27 AM, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:36:34 -0400,
wrote:

Please, Wayne, the Republicans in Congress have made their agenda
perfectly clear. They'll go along with virtually nothing.

Like any politician they will do anything to get reelected. * If their
constituency gets behind something, they'll get the message.
Unfortunately there has been no unifying leadership for a long time,
only increased partianship and divisiveness, with lots of blame to go
around.

The only bright spot I see on the horizon is that the
Republicans are so bereft of quality candidates, they are increasingly
unlikely to regain the White House in 2012.

One name: Mitch Daniels

On 3/14/11 2:30 PM, Jack. wrote:
On Mar 14, 11:33 am, wrote:
On 3/14/11 11:27 AM, Wayne.B wrote:

On Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:36:34 -0400,
wrote:

Please, Wayne, the Republicans in Congress have made their agenda
perfectly clear. They'll go along with virtually nothing.

Like any politician they will do anything to get reelected. If their
constituency gets behind something, they'll get the message.
Unfortunately there has been no unifying leadership for a long time,
only increased partianship and divisiveness, with lots of blame to go
around.

The only bright spot I see on the horizon is that the
Republicans are so bereft of quality candidates, they are increasingly
unlikely to regain the White House in 2012.

One name: Mitch Daniels


For a Republican, not bad, though his willingness to compromise on some
issues will not help him with the teahadists, and his calls to tone down
the debate over hot social issues will not endear him to the
holier-than-thou evangelicals. Conservative as he is, he may well be too
"liberal" to get the nomination.