This is an Obama political article

????????

I am trying to remain open minded and I wish him success; as his success will be the success of the country. However, I am worried.

There's A LOT to be worried about !!!!

i dont like him but hopes he does good

I wll praise what he proposes that I think will work well, and oppose what I think will not, but I voted for him twice, once in the Primary, and once in the General elections, and so far I am not disappointed with either the style or substance of what he is proposing and accomplishing.

Who thinks political articles attacking Obama is a bit premature ???

I do not think that any time after January 20th should be considered "premature" for anyone to voice their opposition or displeasure at Prez Obama's actions or decisions. Once he is in the "driver's seat," we have a right to tell him how we think he should drive.

Who voted for Obama but will attack him when some time has passed and has shown where he has failed ???

I won't "attack" him at all. But, I will express my personal displeasure when he does something that I am against or do not agree with.

How many will defend Obama even if he fails ???

Now, that depends on what you mean by "defend"......

How many will hate and trash Obama even if he does well ???

Contrary to popular opinion, I do not hate Obama at all or in any way. I will not go out of my way to "trash" him, but I will continue to express honest criticism of his actions and executive decisions. And, if he does something that I think was right and good, I will say so......

Who hoped the best for Bush, and didn't trash him until the Iraq war went sour ?

I wish the best for any and every president. I think George Bush was simply "ill-equipped" to handle all the crap that happened in this country after 9-11.......

Thanks, Peter!!!

Thanks for posting this.

paying it forward

Berf said it all..... my opinion exactly!

I was for Hillary first. She's in all this deep enough now that if she does badly I'll get to criticize her, too.

(but I'll be SUCH a gentleman about it - ha ha)

So far so good. But I never thought the man is perfect.

Who thinks political articles attacking Obama is a bit premature ???
Being that I have severe doubts he should have even been allowed to run, I don't think negative articles are out of line. Look the left started on Bush the day he was elected, and both times.


Who voted for Obama but will attack him when some time has passed and has shown where he has failed ???

I voted against him, so cannot answer this.


How many will defend Obama even if he fails ???

I won't.


How many will hate and trash Obama even if he does well ???

I doubt he will, but if he does, without changing the country as he promissed to do, then I will be happy. But changing this country into eith a socialist of Marxist Coutry will be a major downfall.

Who hoped the best for Bush, and didn't trash him until the Iraq war went sour ?

I did not oppose Bush serouly until his support for NAFDA. A few other things. I did get upset with his actions of letting the Liberals tell him how to run the war, then when he refused to listen to the Generals, but not the war itself.

If he does anything illegal, I inted to make a citizens arrest. It'll be on cable.

Obama won. Good for him. That doesn't mean you have to agree with him, vote with him, believe in him. Obama wants the Repbulicans to go along with his boondoggle so they have blood on their hands too. 11 Democrats also didn't vote for the boondoggle. I hope not one Republican Senator votes for it. This will be the Dem's baby.

I do hope he keeps us safe, I get worried about this already when he has tried to appease the radical Muslims by appearing on their TV, and by opening commincations with the nutjob in Iran.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/01/022679.php

Obama's appearance on Muslim TV certainly didn't "appease". The man who interviewed him is always a guest on my PBS news show (is a frequent talking head in America). That interview certainly was about as UNradical as you can get. He told the radicals that "we would get them" !!! That appeases ??? I wonder about that powerline.com keeping things in context if they're going to be that way about it.

(unless they all think that talking to any Muslim is radical)

One thing is sure, Bush diplomacy didn't work AT ALL and we need to try other things.

(unless you think Bush was doing well in diplomacy)

I'm trying to be optimistic

perhaps I'll write my own post on this subject

Not one Republican voted for Clinton's budget. Look how well his budget went down. I don't think Republicans voting for a Democrat budget is any sign of the success it will or won't have.

It seems Republicans don't know how to budget at all. Trickle down economics doesn't seem to trickle down at all. It just sends money up to the top where it stays.

Yay nancy. I will love to read what you write.

We should all afford President Obama the support that was never given to George Bush, if we want the country to succeed.

I try to stay out of such things. I read them but don't get all involved in them. I say a little here and there but that's about it.
I didn't vote for Obama.
I think he should be left alone to do his job.
I have yet to bash Bush.

Of course if Obama and the Dems in Congress leave us in a worse mess, a Great Depression, I'll change my tune.

But so far, it's an onward steady "try try try" - "yes we can" to clean up the "fall of Rome" !!!!

Woot !!!

Lois Lane WTF ??? Bush was given a "blank check" after 9/11 !!!

He had more unanimous support then than any other President has ever had !!!

(except maybe during WWII)

The media has started too, but perhaps not completely out of line....?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/28/campbell.brown.ethics/index.html

'Be straight with us' 1:03
CNN's Campbell Brown asks Obama administration officials to do what they think is best for the country.
• Show Pages - Campbell Brown - CNN.com

Source: CNN | Added January 28, 2009

We have to pray for him and our country. I pray that he does well and that he can bring us out of this mess.
I did'nt vote for him- I am scared for our country. I don't agree with what he is planning on doing. But again I will only wish him great things.
I will not bash him- I still have yet to bash BUsh.
It is in our best interest as americans to pary for him.
WE want him to do good.

It's pray not pary... lol

... how about doing both !!!

I'm very pleased with our new president so far. I have noticed though that there are some who will viciously attack him no matter what he does. When Bush sent out tax rebates as part of his stimulus package I never heard anyone refer to it as socialism.
I did not vote for George Bush but once he was elected I prayed for him and hoped he would have a successful presidency. I cheered him on after 911 until I realized he was using the event as an excuse to play King of The Mountain.

Okay, I'm going to try something different because, well, because I'm in a mood.

"I am trying to remain open minded and I wish him success; as his success will be the success of the country. However, I am worried."

Saying something like "I'm worried" without explaining is a backhanded insult while feeding your own superego. Not to mention lazy and irresponsible.

" i dont like him but hopes he does good "

Ditto. Why don't you like him? Take some responsibility for your statements.

"I wll praise what he proposes that I think will work well, and oppose what I think will not, but I voted for him twice, once in the Primary, and once in the General elections, and so far I am not disappointed with either the style or substance of what he is proposing and accomplishing."

Okay, hard to argue this one. We should all say what we think will work and not work. Of course, that requires us to become informed enough to know what is being proposed and the ramifications of that proposal. Too often we just say something without even thinking or knowing of which we speak.

"I do not think that any time after January 20th should be considered "premature" for anyone to voice their opposition or displeasure at Prez Obama's actions or decisions. Once he is in the "driver's seat," we have a right to tell him how we think he should drive."

Agreed. No time is premature to voice our informed opposition, but any time is immature to voice opposition when we haven't bother to even learn about what we are opposing. Using your the analogy, does it make sense to tell someone how to drive when you haven't even learned how a car works?

"I won't "attack" him at all. But, I will express my personal displeasure when he does something that I am against or do not agree with."

How is that working?

"How many will defend Obama even if he fails ???

Now, that depends on what you mean by "defend"......"

I copied the question because it is relevant to the response. And actually, the question is not the definition of "defend" but rather the definition of "fails," which requires some understanding of the policy goals.

"Contrary to popular opinion, I do not hate Obama at all or in any way. I will not go out of my way to "trash" him, but I will continue to express honest criticism of his actions and executive decisions. And, if he does something that I think was right and good, I will say so......"

When people say "contrary to popular opinion" I always have to wonder how that "opnion" became so "popular?"

"I wish the best for any and every president. I think George Bush was simply "ill-equipped" to handle all the crap that happened in this country after 9-11......."

Many would argue that George Bush was "ill-equipped" for anything related to the Presidency, either before or after 9/11. Others would argue that "all that crap" was the result of Bush/Cheney policies rather than "something that happened to Bush." Of course, there are some people who believe that Bush did the best he could given the circumstances. There are also people who believe Elvis lives, we never landed on the moon, and 9/11 was "an inside job." [My apologies for the crassness. As I said, I'm in a mood and will now and forever apologize if I offend anyone, except of course those who think friends of mine died due to "an inside job."]

" Berf said it all..... my opinion exactly!"

Tammy, we don't always agree, but generally I appreciate your thinking. But see above.

"I was for Hillary first. She's in all this deep enough now that if she does badly I'll get to criticize her, too."

After Obama, Hillary has the toughest job in the world. It reminds me of how we laugh when beauty pageant competitors say they want "world peace." Obama and Hillary have quite a bit of influence over whether that happens. Will it? Nope. But they have a better chance than anyone at this point.

"Being that I have severe doubts he should have even been allowed to run, I don't think negative articles are out of line. Look the left started on Bush the day he was elected, and both times."

What doubts are those? I hope you're not referring to the "not born in the USA" thing, because that would just make you look stupid. As for the "left started on Bush the day he was elected," you are at least partially right, though mostly by accident. The left always will have ideological disagreements with the right (and vice-versa, of course). But after 9/11 the country was almost universally unified behind President Bush. The trouble arose when he decided to lie us into a war that so far has killed over 4000 Americans. It's not surprising that the left got a little vocal after that. Especially when you consider how vocal the right got when Bill Clinton lied about having sex in the oval office.

"I voted against him, so cannot answer this."

Not surprised.

"How many will defend Obama even if he fails ???

I won't."

Phew

"How many will hate and trash Obama even if he does well ???

I doubt he will, but if he does, without changing the country as he promissed to do, then I will be happy. But changing this country into eith a socialist of Marxist Coutry will be a major downfall."

On what basis do you doubt? And how can he succeed if he doesn't change the country, as that is what he set his goals to do? Wouldn't it be failure if he doesn't achieve his goals? The last part simply proves you read too many emails and not enough history books, as you clearly don't know the meaning of "socialist" or "Marxist." It helps credibility if you don't sound ignorant.

"I did not oppose Bush serouly until his support for NAFDA. A few other things. I did get upset with his actions of letting the Liberals tell him how to run the war, then when he refused to listen to the Generals, but not the war itself."

I assume you mean NAFTA. Bush and the Republicans were always in support of NAFTA, so I'm not sure how you could oppose Bush for that. As for "letting the liberals tell him how to run the war," I'm wondering when exactly did Bush let that happen? After losing the Republican control of Congress to the Democrats in 2006, Bush ignored the liberals screaming for us to get out of Iraq and instead ordered "The Surge." As for "refused to listen to the Generals," Bush repeatedly said he would let the Generals decide what to do. In fact, many felt he abdicated his Presidential responsibilities by listening too much to the Generals.

"If he does anything illegal, I inted to make a citizens arrest. It'll be on cable."

How do you define illegal? Bill Clinton lied about having sex and got impeached. George Bush lied about WMDs and got over 4000 Americans killed. Which woudl you make a citizen's arrest for, or would you do both?

"Obama won. Good for him. That doesn't mean you have to agree with him, vote with him, believe in him. Obama wants the Repbulicans to go along with his boondoggle so they have blood on their hands too. 11 Democrats also didn't vote for the boondoggle. I hope not one Republican Senator votes for it. This will be the Dem's baby."

Define "boondoggle." Would getting us into this mess count as "boondoggle," or just attempts to get us out of this mess?

"I do hope he keeps us safe, I get worried about this already when he has tried to appease the radical Muslims by appearing on their TV, and by opening commincations with the nutjob in Iran."

Define "appease." Please explain how alienating the 99% of Muslims who just want to be safe also is a better idea than enlisting those 99% of Muslims to help alienate the 1% who abuse their faith to further their terrorist goals? Wouldn't it make more sense to get the 99% of the world's Muslims on our side rather than force them over to the "dark side?"

"Obama's appearance on Muslim TV certainly didn't "appease". The man who interviewed him is always a guest on my PBS news show (is a frequent talking head in America). That interview certainly was about as UNradical as you can get. He told the radicals that "we would get them" !!! That appeases ???"

Well said.

"One thing is sure, Bush diplomacy didn't work AT ALL and we need to try other things."

Well, I suppose one measure could be "how many people hate the US now" versus "how many hated before Bush/Cheney took office."

"(unless you think Bush was doing well in diplomacy)"

Given that he was big on the stick and not so big on speaking softly...

"I'm trying to be optimistic"

Optimistic is good, backed by intelligent and thoughtful action.

"We should all afford President Obama the support that was never given to George Bush, if we want the country to succeed."

Support yes. Unquestioned, no. We should always be challenging our elected officials to think. And when we have someone in office that clearly does listen, it is even more important to have an engaged and active populace.

"I try to stay out of such things. I read them but don't get all involved in them. I say a little here and there but that's about it.
I didn't vote for Obama.
I think he should be left alone to do his job.
I have yet to bash Bush."

That's fine. Let others take responsibility.

"Of course if Obama and the Dems in Congress leave us in a worse mess, a Great Depression, I'll change my tune."

It's going to hard to figure out what was part of the hole he inherited versus any hole he might create. Let's work to fill in the hole.

"Lois Lane WTF ??? Bush was given a "blank check" after 9/11 !!! He had more unanimous support then than any other President has ever had !!!"

There was very little dissent after 9/11. Even the rest of the world held the door open for us to bomb the Taliban into oblivion. The problem only started when we left the Taliban and al Qaeda alone to regenerate while we did a side-trip into Iraq.

"The media has started too, but perhaps not completely out of line....?"

You don't actually make a point here so I can't comment.

"We have to pray for him and our country. I pray that he does well and that he can bring us out of this mess.
I did'nt vote for him- I am scared for our country. I don't agree with what he is planning on doing. But again I will only wish him great things.
I will not bash him- I still have yet to bash BUsh.
It is in our best interest as americans to pary for him.
WE want him to do good."

Go back and read my first few comments. This is a mess of self-denial, holier-than-thou, and simple disconnect from reality. Try taking responsibility for your statements.

Okay, that's enough. I need to do something worthwhile. And no one will ever read this anyway, except perhaps Peter since this is his post and almost is forced to read everyone's comments.

My point, if anyone cares, is that we say all sorts of meaningless drivel without thinking. It's time to think, and it's time to take responsibility.

Bye

Pardon the misspellings. It was a long post.

yes that was. ha ha

Hey David! I read it :-)

Sorry Peter. Sometimes I get fed up with the brainless drivel. This is one of those times.

I wonder if you get extra points for the length of my diatribe? Maybe I should have split it up into separate comments? Maybe I should find a local bar.

Thanks Kay. I see you slipped in while I was writing my treatise. :)

Who thinks political articles attacking Obama is a bit premature ???
Absolutely not. Just because Obama was elected doesn't mean I've changed my mind about what I believe and what I want for this country.

Who voted for Obama but will attack him when some time has passed and has shown where he has failed ???
I didn't vote for him.

How many will defend Obama even if he fails???
If Obama does something right, I'll celebrate. If he does something wrong, I'll point it out. And whether he has succeeded or failed, will, of course, be my opinion, not necessarily the opinions of everyone.

How many will hate and trash Obama even if he does well???
I don't hate anyone. And I don't plan on trashing him, although I will continue to disagree with policies and programs that I dislike.

Who hoped the best for Bush, and didn't trash him until the Iraq war went sour?
I never trashed Bush. There are so many things about the Presidency that we don't know. Obama has discovered that. One news report stated that when Obama received his first of the daily security briefings, "he was sobered."

That's a lot of questions, Peter.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/dining/28bacon.html?_r=1&no_interstitial

The Republicans were so hard on Obama it pushed people to support him, just as in the Clinton years the nastiness of Republicans when they stalled on passing the budgets.

Now attacking him make them look like the uncooperative SOB's they are, somehow Obama and his sincerity has a leveling effect the encourages positive contribution and shows negativity up for what it is. Let's hope it lasts for 8 years, this country can no longer afford gridlock and cynicism.

Winston - See my comment to Peter.

I just wonder how many will take the foot out of the mouth when what he does works? Sorry Peter I'm not reading the comments here yet. I will get around to it but I'm sure I know what they are saying.

I'm sure one of the biggest gripes right now is his stimulus package. How many complained or refused to take the check Bush got passed? It was all well and good then.

I'm not a Bush supporter. Didn't vote for him or his daddy. I did give him the benefit of the doubt after 9-11 for about a minute. Bash him? No more than Obama is being bashed after a week in office.

I know that what Obama faces is more than any of us can comprehend. And it's easy for us to all sit back and be armchair presidents. If he fails, we fail. We are all going to have to pull together and make this work.

Support him, of course, bash him if he fails, no way. He's trying to fix what failed long before he arrived and he's the only president that has given us some kind of hope that he's for the people.

"I just wonder how many will take the foot out of the mouth when what he does works? Sorry Peter I'm not reading the comments here yet. I will get around to it but I'm sure I know what they are saying."

Please take a look at the comments. Some of them are quite entertaining.

"I'm sure one of the biggest gripes right now is his stimulus package. How many complained or refused to take the check Bush got passed? It was all well and good then."

I have to say that is one of the most insightful things I've read in days. There are bad things about the package, and good things. But to trash it on a partisan basis is not only disingenous, it's hypocritical.

"I'm not a Bush supporter. Didn't vote for him or his daddy. I did give him the benefit of the doubt after 9-11 for about a minute. Bash him? No more than Obama is being bashed after a week in office."

Most people are not Bush supporters right now, including most real conservatives. But then he is out of office so it really doesn't matter any more. And I agree, we all back President Bush after 9/11, at least until he let Rovian politics take over.

"I know that what Obama faces is more than any of us can comprehend. And it's easy for us to all sit back and be armchair presidents. If he fails, we fail. We are all going to have to pull together and make this work."

Bush left Obama the deepest abyss any President has ever passed on to his successor. It behooves us all to try to find a way not only to fill the hole he left, but to start climbing the mountain that remains.

"Support him, of course, bash him if he fails, no way. He's trying to fix what failed long before he arrived and he's the only president that has given us some kind of hope that he's for the people."

Yes, support him. Bash him, no...but provide constructive criticism to keep him from going all partisan on us, yes. As for giving us hope, if only the self-imposed blindness people feeling up the elephant would only be let loose, they would see that this is a President for the first time in ages actually listens. He reached out to the GOP. He reached out to the Blue Dog (moderate) Democrats. He reached out to the public. If ever there was a chance to get heard, now is it. If the Republicans (and partisan Democrats) don't take advantage of this opportunity, then they are condemming us to failure. This is not Obama's failure if it doesn't work out - he's doing all he can. This one is on us.

Thanks Lynn for one of the most thoughtful comments I've seen in quite a while.

David K., Your very VERY attentive comments have made my article !!!!

(thanks)

Who thinks political articles attacking Obama is a bit premature ???

I think all who were elected into office need a bit of a grace period. Challenge his strategies all you wish, but do so with a plan you think may work better, not just slam him. Also, if you decide to slam him for his beliefs or strategies, be prepared to look at what his success's are.

Who voted for Obama but will attack him when some time has passed and has shown where he has failed ???
I will not attack. I will challenge and again seek to find a different way to go. Failure will not just rest on his shoulders, but on those who also went on the same path. Also, there are many variables our country does not control.



How many will defend Obama even if he fails ???
I do not find defend to be the word I would use. I would want to criticize that which I find to be an issue and again suggest a different route when at all possible.



How many will hate and trash Obama even if he does well ???
I wonder what purpose trashing someone who is doing well does.



Who hoped the best for Bush, and didn't trash him until the Iraq war went sour ?
That would be me. I am an optimist. However, Bush did many things that were not in the best interest of the United States. He was the wrong president for the time. I'm not sure there ever would have been a time for him to be president, but this was not it.

I'm fine with criticisms and discussions/debates. But I'm just really tired of the nonsense from either side about things like birth certificates, "repuglicans", communism (and most comments using the word "socialism", but not all), conspiracies, name-calling, and most kinds of cynicism about parties or politicians being evil or whatnot.

Sometimes it seems like this makes up the majority of the comments/post I have to wade through... Most of the time it's the same people too...

Yeah, the word "socialism" gets waved a lot, like an evil flag ...

Today I just read Nancy Pelosi called that (here on Gather). Ugh.

David! You have me rolling on the floor! Love it... love it all! You should adopt this mood more often. I raise my Blue Moon in your honor!

I will continue your rant....

"There are bad things about the package, and good things. But to trash it on a partisan basis is not only disingenous, it's hypocritical."

Technically... the opposition was bi-partisan... it's passage was partisan.

Who in Washington is being hypocritical? Everyone EXCEPT the 11 Dems that votes against the package? I doubt it.

I, for one, can say my Rep voted in line with my wishes... and I guarantee he knew my wishes before he entered that floor! I know because my calls and emails netted me a call from his office prior to the vote. I knew what he was voting and why. I also understood where he was willing to compromise... if a compromise had been offered... which wasn't. I don't expect him to always "vote my wishes", but I do expect him to be able to explain why he votes the way he does. If he can do that, I'll stand behind his vote.

That doesn't make him "disingenous". It makes him "in touch" with his voters.

I sincerely hope every other Rep went into that room understanding how the people that elected him felt about the bill. But I'm intelligent enough to know that probably didn't happen since most voters will "vent" on Gather... but not contact their Rep.... assuming, of course, they even know who their Reps are! I'm also clever enough to know that jumping party lines can be political hell in Washington... especially in a new administration.

HI Peter, Here to support ya, but not talk about himmmmmm

"assuming, of course, they even know who their Reps are!"

TOO funny - I bet lots of us Gatherers just vent here at Gather and don't even know who our reps are, or at least how to contact them, or how to contact them and say something useful.

Hi *Sandi *- you WERE warned by the title of this thing ...

very VERY warned ...

ha ha

You won't find blind followers of Obama` as you had with bush.
He screws up and we will let him know and he will listen to us.
Now that will be different won't it?

Not just blindly follow as the kool aid drinking booshies did.

Peter, great questions. I voted for him, and will accept all his decisions, right or wrong. He is only a man, and I believe, going to do the best job he can. I continue to pray for his direction, and protection, daily. Imagine if that horrible women was to become our president. Yikes, that would have been worse than any mistakes Obama makes.

So far, I've pleased that he's at least trying to get the things he said he wanted done, done. I won't bash him unless he does something really stupid or illegal, like, say, getting us into a war when we don't need to be in a war..

David K -- All you did was attack everything everyone said. How do you expect meaningful conversations that way?

Constructive criticism is good for the soul. I prefer that to outright bashing, so for the last question you asked, I raised my hand.

I joined in a demonstration against the Iraq invasion BEFORE it happened. I disliked Saddam intensely, but I felt that the danger that he posed to the USA was exaggerated.

Will I support Obama? I have and I do and I will. Will I attack him if he fails? Define "fails". I will not blame obama if he leads us in the right direction, but too few of us are willing to follow. That will not be his fault, but rather our own.

hi peter

I ended up bashing Bush not because he failed but rather because he succeeded in accomplishing negative things, and because he rarely tried to accomplish positive things. As David notes, those negative accomplisments leave Obama a mountain to climb, a mountain that he cannot climb alone.

"David K -- All you did was attack everything everyone said. How do you expect meaningful conversations that way?"

No, all I did was point out the lack of thought in what most people said. How do any of us expect to have meaningful conversations when all we write is out of the platitude playbook? Meaningful conversations come from becoming informed about the issues and thinking through them logically. Mostly, we don't even try.

"Technically... the opposition was bi-partisan... it's passage was partisan."

I can't agree here Tammy. While one party voted almost unanimously for it, the other party did vote unanimously against it. The fact that <5% (a meaningless amount) of the "for" party voted "against" doesn't make the opposition bi-partisan. Outliers do not create the rule, they are exceptions to the rule. In fact, one would have to look at why the 11 Democrats voted against to see their motives. Some of their motives might very well have been partisan, which would put them back into the "rule" column anyway.

"That doesn't make him "disingenous". It makes him "in touch" with his voters. I sincerely hope every other Rep went into that room understanding how the people that elected him felt about the bill."

The point here was not so much that the politicians were being disingenuous, nor that they were not following their constituents wishes. Rather it was that most of the time their constituents express their "opinion" without having any clue as to the topic on which they are opining. We don't take the time to understand anything, and surely most people don't think about anything, so our representatives are forced to follow the party line largely out of reelection safety. In short, if they don't cause any waves and make sure the pork money rolls back to their district, they will get reelected. We discourage innovation and thoughtfulness on the part of our elected officials.

This is on us, and we have failed in our role as an informed electorate.

"No, all I did was point out the lack of thought in what most people said. How do any of us expect to have meaningful conversations when all we write is out of the platitude playbook? Meaningful conversations come from becoming informed about the issues and thinking through them logically. Mostly, we don't even try."

No, I think while you are reading someone's opinion, you are not really reading it, and thinking about what they have to say. You are thinking about what you are going to say to cut them down. This makes you feel superior to them. I'll bet you have never learned to really listen to people when they talk. You probably think that if someone does not agree with you, then they just have to be stupid. You probably think there is no way in hell you are ever wrong. You are very closed minded.

Thank you, David K.

David K....

Do you honestly believe a $819B stimulus package (with a $347B interest repayment over 10 years) is going to fix the economic problems? Your "take the good with the bad" approach appears to make that so and eliminates the thought that compromise is appropriate.

What's wrong with expecting our elected officials to be fiscally responsible? (Especially since many are still crying "foul" over the spending from the last administration). Why shouldn't our elected officials vote/negotiate to eliminate the excesses? Why should we HAVE to take the bad with the good?

Have you read the 647 page document? I have... it was painful!

Tell me HOW (on page 14) prohibiting Illinios from accessing money unless Blagojevich (yes, he is in HR1 by name!!) is ousted helps stimulate the economy? Just the mere inclusion of such a proposal brings the "politics" of the bill into question!

Tell me HOW (on page 122) giving the National Endowment of the Arts $50M is going to stimulate the economy when people can't afford housing and food... how could they possibly afford to take their famiies to theater productions and art galleries!

Tell me HOW (on page 50) an additional $650M for digital to analog conversion is stimulating the economy? BTW... the inclusion of this measure reeks of political wrangling considering the fact that Obama's top pick for managing the FCC just happens to be married to the woman that jacked up the converter box coupon program!!

The list of "bad" in this bill is outrageous. We aren't talking nickels and dimes... we're are talking about a burden that will last into the next generation.

David, I love your comments and admit that you "make me think". Your comments force me to go back and justify my thoughts and comments.... they hold me accountable. But I'm beginning to think that you only see the value in "thinking" when it supports your opining. I am a thinker and I feel I am informed about the bill. Just because I don't agree with many aspects of HR1... that doesn't mean I'm ignorant about the country's current economic crisis and doesn't mean that I wish failure for Obama's administration.

I support Obama but that doesn't mean I can't disagree with his decisions or criticize. We don't have to say "yes, sir, yes, sir," with this President to be considered Americans. His administration won't be looking to silence opposition, but they'll be willing to work with it.

I think people are waking up and realizing that voting for the "good Christian" they'd like to have a beer with isn't the way to choose leadership. Now I hope people remember Obama ran on a "Yes, WE can," not a "Let ME show you what I can do" platform.

" We should all afford President Obama the support that was never given to George Bush, if we want the country to succeed. "
That's the most rediculous claim I've seen made yet. After 9/11 that vile little Weasle-in-Chief had unprecedented support both inside this country and from around the world. He pissed it all away.

I've seen people on Gather complaining that we're still spending money on Iraq, that American cars are still poor quality, that the stock market is still in the tank. I think people who don't like him want to see him fail. And nothing he does will be good enough. Anyone who thinks that the quality of American cars should be improved 10 days into his presidency obviously is not giving him a chance and does not want to see him succeed.

Tammy N. - very informative and well thought out response. You should write an article about it, I'd like to know more.

"No, I think while you are reading someone's opinion, you are not really reading it, and thinking about what they have to say. You are thinking about what you are going to say to cut them down. This makes you feel superior to them. I'll bet you have never learned to really listen to people when they talk. You probably think that if someone does not agree with you, then they just have to be stupid. You probably think there is no way in hell you are ever wrong. You are very closed minded."

I would disagree with you virtually everything you say in this comment, Donna. I think if you reread and think about the original comments to which I was responding you would also have to agree with me. But you don't have to agree with me. I have many friends on which we do not agree on all the issues. Sometimes they even convince me that I was in error in my interpretation. But they did so by providing persuasive arguments and factual evidence to support their positions, not by simply repeating something they read in a blog.

"Do you honestly believe a $819B stimulus package (with a $347B interest repayment over 10 years) is going to fix the economic problems?"

I have no idea, Tammy. I certainly hope so since they seem intent on passing it. But I actually I'm not particularly keen on the idea at all. Especially after the first one worked so well and no one seemed to be accountable for how it was spent.

"David, I love your comments and admit that you "make me think". Your comments force me to go back and justify my thoughts and comments.... they hold me accountable. But I'm beginning to think that you only see the value in "thinking" when it supports your opining."

Thank you Tammy. Not for the compliment, but for the rest of your comment that I didn't cut and paste here. You are one of the few people who actually has read the bill and provided real questions about some of its provisions. We should all be asking our elected representatives to explain how each of these provisions is going to stimulate the economy. Some, like the Blagojevich one you point out, are obviously political, though at the same time there is a rational reason why you wouldn't want (now ex-) Governor "Seat for Sale" to have control over a substantial chunk of federal funds.

As for the other provisions, I agree that there is likely tons of "bad" in with what is promised at least to be "good." I would like reality to be that everything makes sense and they explain it all clearly. Unfortunately, most people don't care enough to listen and merely prefer to whine or parrot their favorite talking head. So the people we elect don't even bother to try to explain. For the most part, we've proven incapable or unwilling to understand enough to push back when they try to squeeze in wasteful things (the definition of which, obviously, would differ depending on whom you ask).

So Tammy, I assure you that I value thinking no matter whether that process leads to agreement with me or not. My frustration is that most people don't even bother trying to think. You're comments, frankly, are a breath of fresh air in that regard, and I thank you again. You have made me think.