Obama v. Reagan: Fun Comparison I Did To Piss Off Wingnuts on Reagan's B-day

Crossposted as Rec diary on DKOS. As you can see, 42K Shares and over 880 Retweets. On 2/16/15, was inducted in DKos Classics.

I share this post on Reagan's birthday for with those who start dripping with sentimentality forgetting what he did, what his legacy is still doing, and worst of all, (for my conservative friends), that they wouldn't have liked him today anyway! Enjoy:

Imagine a world that never knew Ronald Reagan:

No Scalia, No Rumsfeld, No Cheney. No Bushes and all of their appointments and disasters. No funding of dictators like Saddam Hussein (Reagan propped him up big time) or psychopaths like Osama Bin Laden (that worked out well).

An America far less dependent on oil. A superpower respected for skilled diplomacy in ending conflicts, instead of starting them. And a healthy economy with a strong middle class instead of a world where the labor movement has been viciously attacked, and the middle class is systematically being dismantled. Under Reagan, corporations gained massive power to the point today where they have become "people". Unions, the worker's last protection, were severely weakened, and the socioeconomic gap exploded. He also bankrupted us, pouring hundreds of billions into wasteful spending, like the failed and ridiculous Star Wars missile-defense system. All in just 8 short years.

Reagan created the modern plutocracy. He introduced us to the whole "take from the poor, give to the rich" supply-side economics that we still suffer today. He turned compassion to the less fortunate to villianization... created the mythical "welfare queen", mocked AIDS patients, and let his fellow "Christians" know it was okay to belittle the homeless.

CEOs before Reagan made 78 times their minimum wage workers. Today, its almost 3500 times! Without Reagan, America might have had the same income distribution we had in the 1970s, which would mean we would be averaging $120,000 annually--not $40,000.

Reagan was the realization of Barry Goldwater's failed dream that put the GOP on the path of crazytown where it is today. He somehow managed to blend the selfish, plutocratic Ayn Randian economic philosophy with fundamental Christianity and wrap it all up into a cowboy, patriotic image that was as phony as this ranch. Bottom line. REAGAN WAS A BASTARD.

And we are still hurting. So when I hear the idiot conservatives longing for him on social media, the radio and the "specials" on Faux News, I want them to hurt. And the best way to do that? HIT THEM WHERE IT HURTS.

Next time someone starts revising history or just starts a syrupy tribute, hit them with this. Comparing their St. Ronnie with the man that literally drives them insane... Mr. O'Barry himself. Shoot them the following information...then just watch them squirm and enjoy the fireworks:

REAGAN CUT AND RUN, OBAMA DIDN'T COWER
Remember when the GOP loved to say "cut and run" as an excuse to keep our troops in Iraq forever? Even after they said "Mission Accomplished"? But who invented cut and run? The Gipper.

OBAMA: Our troops were repeatedly attacked in Afghanistan, yet when Obama came into office, he increased troop strength by 68,000. (Along with an actual plan, unlike his predecessor.) His track record of killing terrorists far outweighs his predecessors.

REAGAN: Reagan retreated from Lebanon immediately after the 1983 terror attack by Hezbollah that resulted in the murder of 243 Marines. According to the 9/11 Commission Report (p. 96), Reagan's cut and run INSPIRED Bin Laden, who viewed the United States as a “paper tiger” because of its rapid withdrawal after the attack.

OBAMA KILLED TERRORISTS, REAGAN GAVE THEM WEAPONS
OBAMA: Gave the naval commander the go ahead to kill several pirates, which resulted in saving the life of Captain Richard Phillips. (PS--Even though terrorists were killed and the captain rescued, f--king Rush Limbaugh, who originally accused Obama of dithering on saving Capt. Phillips, then cried that Obama killed teenagers when the snipers took out the pirates. Obama-Derangement-Syndrome.)

OH! And there was also that whole killing of Osama thing you might of heard about. Obama went against the advice of his own vice president and Defense Secretary Gates and ordered the assault. He is even responsible for ordering the two backup helicopters in case of problems, which was a good thing since one of the assault choppers crashed outside the compound.

I would also like to point out that Obama's military intervention thru a multi-state coalition resulted in the death of Muammar Gaddafi and ended his regime without the death of one American soldier. Reagan tried a unilateral action against Gaddafi and failed miserably. You're welcome.

REAGAN: Reagan APPEASED terrorists. He ignored their atrocities and spent taxpayer dollars to train, arm, equip, fund and overall coddle Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan for his proxy war with the Soviets. He is directly responsible for making a terrorist kingpin out of Osama Bin Laden. Reagan loved him some Taliban

Scoll down this link to see Reagan meeting with leaders of the Islamic Jihad at the White House 1985

But all I really need to say is two words: IRAN-CONTRA. Reagan was so bad he SECRETLY TRADED F*^KING arms for HOSTAGES! DO I really need to say more?? Can you just imagine the wingnut explosion if Obama did that?

Reagan also met with our enemies without preconditions (1985, Soviet Union)... something that Obama was attacked for saying he just wanted to do. But again, giving weapons to terrorists pretty much takes the cake.

AMNESTY FOR ILLEGALS:
This drives the GOP NUTS when I point this out. Who knew?

REAGAN:

I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here even though sometime back they may have entered illegally.
-Ronald Reagan 10/28/1984

OBAMA:

No matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these law should be held accountable.
-Barack Obama July 2010

Made that up, did I? Watch it yourself

REAGAN RAISED INCOME TAXES 11 TIMES, OBAMA NEVER
OBAMA: In fact, wound up being the largest tax-cutter in presidential history cutting $654 billion in 2011 and 2012 alone. He was in favor of letting the Bush tax cuts EXPIRE for the super wealthy, (which no, is not the same as a tax hike), but even that didn't come to pass. Romney in 2012 even admitted Obama didn't raise taxes.

Obama has consistently CUT taxes, not raised them.

REAGAN: He got through a big tax cut once he took office. But to hear conservatives talk, that's where the story ends. They forget he raised income taxes in 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986 and 1987.

Actually, he raised taxes 11 times to include four MASSIVE tax increases!

DEFICIT SPENDING
REAGAN: Whether you are looking at the economic policies of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush, reining in the deficit was clearly of no concern. Reagan tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight. Reagan soared the spending, Clinton brought in back down a bit, and W. took it way back up. To be fair to the Gipper, NO ONE did deficit like W. He spent the Clinton surplus like a drunken sailor. And by the way, Obama's spending initiatives were less than half of his predecessor.

OBAMA: Even though Obama inherited a huge debt from W., and focused on a stimulus that benefited the people instead of Bush's stimulus for Wall Street, he still has a much better record on spending than the Gipper and much better than W. Obama did not triple the gross federal debt like Reagan did. Obama is following the Clinton model of spending up front and then focusing on deficit reduction. I predict at the end of Obama's term in 2016, the deficit will be cut drastically--but it can't be anywhere close to what Reagan or Bush had at the end of their two terms. Why? Because the GOP loves to throw money at their base...tax cuts for Big Oil and the wealthiest amongst us which add hundreds of billions to the debt but create nothing. That ain't happening--you are welcome teabaggers.

UPDATE: From politifact, Obama has cut the national deficit in half!

Another politifact article was actually sent to me from a wingnut troll to prove Obama was bad on the deficit and Reagan was good. Idiot never read his own link. The article clearly stated the worst ever were Reagan and Bush! Facts just don't work on some people.

ABORTION
OBAMA: Believes abortion should be safe, legal and rare. And they are. Abortions under Obama are at their lowest rate since 1973. Granted, as the article says it has more to do with advances in birth control than anything a politician does, but once again shows conservatives to be liars when they claimed abortions would skyrocket under Obama. Although Obama supports reproductive freedom, when the Dems controlled both houses of Congress, he proposed no legislation that would make abortion access easier (which would have been nice because of the constant assault from conservatives).

REAGAN: Stauchly forced-birth. Yet wingnuts never talk about his policies as governor. Reagan signed the "Therapeutic Abortion Act" only six months as California governor. There were 518 legal abortions in California in 1967, and the number of abortions would soar to an annual average of 100,000 in the remaining years of Reagan’s two terms. This was more abortions than in any U.S. state prior to the advent of Roe v. Wade. Just sayin'

GUN CONTROL
(I give Reagan props for this, even though it was only because he got shot. But like his abortion law, conservatives sweep this under the rug:)

REAGAN: COMPLETELY supported the Brady Bill, the holy grail of gun control. Reagan even wrote an op-ed piece for it in the evil NY Times.

OBAMA: The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence flunked Obama on every single gun control issue. Proposed nothing for federal gun control laws when he had a super majority Dem Congress. When he had that Dem majority, in fact, federal gun rights EXPANDED by allowing guns on trains and in our national parks. Yet the NRA still told their idiot members that Obama was coming to take their guns.... and gun sales skyrocketed.

So what's the verdict? Conservatives love affair with Reagan and their hate affair with Obama seems to be bassackwards.

I submit it was REAGAN who was the illegal amnesty-supporting, gun control loving, deficit spending, tax raising, terrorist coddling coward. (As for support of "traditional family values", Obama has a great relationship with his family--Reagan was the first divorced president and was estranged from his children.)

Challenge a conservative to disprove anything I mentioned here. I supported it with the facts. Just be prepared for all kinds of name-calling.

And just to turn the screws... presidential scholars think Obama outranks Reagan as president. So in a few years I expect to be flying into Obama National in DC! Oh, it is going to happen.

Happy birthday Wingnuts!

Polls are in: NO CONVENTION BOUNCE! (w/ funny GOP reaction)

Crossposted as a Recommended diary on DailyKos.

Couldn't have happened to a more awful person:

A modest bump in popularity for U.S. presidential hopeful Mitt Romney from this week's Republican Party convention looks to be short-lived, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Democratic President Barack Obama regained a narrow lead on Saturday by 44 percent to 43 percent over his Republican challenger, former Massachusetts Governor Romney, in the latest daily installment of the four-day rolling poll....

"This wasn't a lightning bolt convention," Ipsos pollster Julia Clark said. "Comparatively speaking, this was a more muted convention in general ... So it doesn't surprise me that (the bump in polls) wasn't a great deal bigger."

Gallup Poll showed no bounce at all.

Analysis on the Gallup Poll from Mr. Nate Silver:

The most sluggish of the tracking polls is from Gallup, which reports its results over a lengthy seven-day window. That means that only about half its interviews occurred after the start of the convention, and a smaller fraction than that will represent people surveyed after Mr. Romney’s acceptance address.

However, the trend so far in the Gallup poll is a bit disappointing for Mr. Romney; the survey still shows Mr. Obama one point ahead. By comparison, the Gallup poll has had a 46-46 tie on average over the past 60 days.

Here is what you need to take away from this.

THIS IS THE PEAK FOR MITT ROMNEY!

After a disastrous summer, August was to be the month of Mitt. First with his veep announcement, and then the convention. The convention has just ended.... which means we had an entire week of unfiltered Mitt Romney propoganda covered by the news media. The Dem convention hasn't started yet, so THIS LABOR WEEKEND should be Mitt at his absolute highest.

And he is still losing....

Hundreds of millions spent by a few billionaires, voter suppression, scare tactics, racism, and nonstop lies. Even with a sluggish economy, the American people know they don't want to go back to the trickle-down, Romney-Hood policies of what made this economy sluggish in the first place.

People do not like or trust Mitt.

He made his extreme fortune forcing companies to take on extreme debt, and having OTHERS try to pay it off... but only after he and his vulture buddies got paid their management "fees". Sort of like his economic plan.... increase the deficit and have the middle class pay a lot more so he and his buddies can pay A LOT less.

And THIS is the man the GOP picked. The man to "solve" our deficit?

What makes this very sweet for me is the fact that conservatives are in extreme denial. Several, like this clown and this one, are not only projecting a RMoney win, but a BIG RMONEY LANDSLIDE! They saw something at the convention no one else saw (like an invisible Obama), but also are bolstered by this University of Colorado "analysis":

A University of Colorado analysis of state-by-state factors leading to the Electoral College selection of every U.S. president since 1980 forecasts that the 2012 winner will be Mitt Romney.

The key is the economy, say political science professors Kenneth Bickers of CU-Boulder and Michael Berry of CU Denver. Their prediction model stresses economic data from the 50 states and the District of Columbia, including both state and national unemployment figures as well as changes in real per capita income, among other factors.

“Based on our forecasting model, it becomes clear that the president is in electoral trouble,” said Bickers, also director of the CU in DC Internship Program.

Using ONLY historical data is a problem, professors. Mitt hasn't led in the electoral college at ANY point in this election. Even McCain led Obama ONE WEEk after the GOP convention. No historical data will match the suck factor that is Romney. Historically, there was never such a disparity in likability, trust and competence.

BUt please, PLEASE, keep believing in your alternate reality fantasy that somehow Mitt will sweep all the states. That would be keeping within your beliefs that the president is an alien, Kenyan, Socialist, Aethist-Muslim who owns a time machine to plant fake birth announcements. Your strong beliefs in the face of facts are what gives snake oil salesmen like Rove the ability to piss billionaire's money down the drain.

Thank you.

One last thing, professors. If you want historical data, I have a better one. The worst pundit in America, the troll who is Dick Morris, (who recently said that Akin was a boon for RMoney), and has made every wrong prediction for every election......(wait for it).... just predicted a landslide for Romney.

Now that's data you can use.

What Obama Can Learn from Clinton

I enjoyed watching the History Channel’s 2004 series "The Presidents", which I watched on You Tube yesterday. When they got to Presdient Clinton, Leon Panetta explained his showdown with Newt Gingrich. Clinton, like Obama, was dispirited after the 1994 election. But he said Clinton knew politics and KNEW that he had to draw a line in the sand. Gringrich thought he could bully Clinton with threatening to shut donw the government if he didn’t get his way.

Clinton didn't show weakness with the terrorist. He stood firm. He didn’t cave.

Gov’t did shut down for a bit. And people were outraged... not at Clinton, but at Newt and the GOP. It was Newt that came back to the bargaining table. It was newt and the GOP that suffered seat losses in 1996, along with the defeat of Bob Dole. Newt himself had a very close re-election bid, and he was spooked enough to give a speech that essentially said "message received loud and clear".

We have the high ground here. DEMOCRATS voted for a straight middle-class tax cut. GOP filibustered it. GOP is willing to hold the unemployment benefits for struggling families hostage unless every millionaire and billionaire in this country gets $100,000 of tax payer money. They are willing to add $700 billion to the national debt for the wealthiest Americans, but say a few billion to help people who can’t find work this holiday season is too expensive. They don’t have a leg to stand on.

The only way to lose is not to fight. I hear on the radio yet another spineless Dem saying we need to take whatever deal is offered because the GOP is better at messaging than us, and that we will get blamed if taxes go up. I say enough is enough. I don’t know aobut you, but I am sick to death of this... right now we still have a SUPER majority in the House and Senate, and a Dem Prez, WHY are we still cowering? Do you really think if a deal is made the GOP will play nice?

Draw a line, dammit. No further. NO MORE. You rethug SOBs want to filibuster? DO IT!!

Maybe, just maybe, the American people will wise up to the REAL priorities of the GOP and maybe even bother to vote next time!

If the Dems can’t win this message war over what is blatantly obvious...they deserve to lose. If the Dems cave on this, who do you think is going to show up at the polls in 2012?

Draw the damn line.

PS:
WHY THE F*&^ ARE WE NEGOTIATING ANYWAY? We still have a super majority in the House, and we can do Budget Reconciliation in the Senate! That is what W. did to pass these massive breaks to the wealthy in the first place. Am I missing something?

Presidential Scholars Rank Obama 15th Greatest Prez!

From Politico:

A new poll of leading presidential scholars ranks Barack Obama as the 15th best president of the United States, just below Bill Clinton but ahead of Ronald Reagan.


The Siena College poll, which surveyed 238 presidential scholars at U.S. colleges and universities, asked scholars to rate the nation’s 43 chief executives on 20 attributes ranging from legislative accomplishments to integrity and imagination.

Read more

Ahead of Reagan... which will really explode a teabagger's head. Given that Obama has gotten things done with unified GOP opposition on everything, I'd say that's pretty amazing.

P.S.: No surprise... W. is ranked as one of the worst.

No Blacks! No Jews! No Homos! No Dems!

NO BLACKS!
Grayson nailed it. Dr. Jack Caswell couldn't legally put up a sign that said "NO BLACKS", so he did the next best thing...put up a sign that says NO OBAMA VOTERS, knowing that 98% of blacks voted for Obama.

It was a way of discriminating by race WO saying it.

Now every black patient has to be wondering if they got the best care or if their complications were as a result of being "punished" by this quack.


NO JEWS!
The argument that it is okay because he would treat them anyway or doesn't quiz them is ridiculous. You could put up a sign that says NO JEWS and promise the same thing, but the intimidation factor is there. And placed there by THE DOCTOR, no less. It is discriminating against patients based on beliefs---and no different morally than discriminating against those who hold different religious beliefs or different political beliefs.


NO HOMOS!
Finally, the argument that it isn't illegal. Well, it is not illegal to discriminate against homosexuals in Florida either. Sexual orientation is not protected. However, that doesn't mean a medical doctor who supposedly took the Hypocratic Oath should turn away a homosexual who needs care. Yet I promise you that if he did, the right-wing would defend him just as much as they are defending him now.


Bottom line: A doctor is supposed to have the highest ethical standards. Caswell is neither ethical nor professional...anyone who would bring political ideology into his or her medical office, where people are vulnerable patients, is wrong. Discriminating and intimidating people who disagree with your nutty ideology, however, is downright EVIL. It would be just as evil as if a Dem doctor refused Cheney supporters---but you never heard of that happening.

That is because this new breed of GOPers holds nothing sacred.

Breaking hundreds of years of decorum and heckling the president openly in Congress is acceptable.

Encouraging violence, even threatening Representative's lives because of how they voted, is acceptable.

Threatening Census Worker's lives is acceptable.

Attacking public defenders who are assigned to defend terror suspects is acceptable.

Discriminating against Democrats in medical offices is acceptable.

Because OBAMA is in office, and rules of civilization can be put by the wayside because this black guy has the gall to be our president...and is actually getting things done even though the GOP has devoted the past year to ensuring NOTHING gets done.

That's why they are crazy, and the worst is yet to come...

No Health Care Reform? Blame Malia and her dumb flute!

Of all the reasons HCR failed, I found this one from the New York Times to be the dumbest...

IT is no secret that President Obama desperately wants Congress to pass legislation to overhaul health care. But last month, when Mr. Obama convened Congressional Democratic leaders at the White House for a marathon negotiating session, another priority intervened.

His 11-year-old daughter, Malia, had a band recital.

Thus did the president of the United States ditch his own health care talks — temporarily, at least — to slip off to Sidwell Friends School for a few hours to listen to Malia play the flute.

WHO is outraged by this? The so-called right-wing Family Values crowd:

“People elect you not to be a good family man, they elect you to fix their problems, and that’s the cold-hearted reality of it,” said John Feehery, a Republican political strategist. “And all those folks on the Hill, they’ve left all their families at home; they don’t have the luxury of skipping back home in the middle of the meeting to catch their daughter’s recital"

ARE YOU F&^*ING KIDDING ME!?!?

Yeah! That's why we don't have Health Care Reform! F&^%ing Flute Recitals!!

It had NOTHING to do with every single Republican obstructing reform! Or initiating a fillibuster on EVERY SINGLE PIECE of legislation for the first time in history for the sole reason of grinding this country to a halt because they want Obama to fail!

Newflash, FEEhery...Family Values means more than just hating gay people.

It means, God-forbid, spending time with your family. There is no reason the most powerful person in the world can't take an hour to see his daughter's flute recital...if you were really that damn concerned, you would tell you GOP brethren to negotiate in good faith and MAYBE we would have solutions to these massive REPUBLICAN-caused problems!!

I've heard all kinds of stupid from the GOP, but blaming their obstruction and their problems on Malia takes stupid to a whole new level.

59-41 means mandate for GOP?

Remember 2000? With the slimmest majority and contested election, the GOP rammed through legislation using budget reconciliation. Tax cuts were given to the superwealthy while the Democrats stood feckless. The GOP wasn't punished in 2004, in fact, they gained seats.

Then when they wanted to ram through extremist, unqualified, right-wing psycho judges in 2005, they smacked down the Democrats who tried to pull the fillibuster by threatening to go "nuclear". They said they would rewrite the rules to allow 51.

Son of a bitch if the press didn't swallow thier storyline that they just wanted an "up or down" vote and Dems were being "obstructionist". Why couldn't we get it through our thick heads that elections have consequences?!

As always, we capitulated on the worst judges if they promised to play nice.

Well, here we are in 2010. Even with losing MA, we still have the LARGEST MAJORITY any party has enjoyed since 1923!!

And we are the ones who are capitulating!!

I had to listen to Barack Obama give a speech not to long ago, and say off the cuff that "as you know, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to get anything passed".

WTF?!? Why the hell aren't we screaming about straight "up or down" votes?! Unlike in 2005, when we only fillibustered extreme judges, the GOP is fillibustering EVERYTHING!! Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, and David "Diaper Boy" Vitter fillibuster EVERY SINGLE BILL, even ones that pass 90-10.

Why isn't our spineless leadership raising cane about this??! Why can't we go "nuclear"? What are they gonna do that they haven't done already?

Why don't we use reconciliation to get things through?!? WHY are still playing nice?

We tried bi-partisanship. Baucus wasted months desperately trying to get ONE GOPer to support our obviously broken health-care system. We capitulated on every major point in the Senate Bill thanks to spineless Reid. And what did we get? NOT one GOPer voted for the Senate Bill. One GOPer voted for the House Bill.

So Gibbs is saying we need more bi-partisanship?? WTF??

Pelosi is saying she doesn't have the votes so she isn't going to try to pass the Senate Bill and use reconciliation to fix it...so she's okay with starting over?? WTF??

Obama is STILL refusing to get involved in "the legislative process"?? Says he'll just pass a few token items after ALL OF THIS MESS we went through last year?? WTF??

WTF??
WTF??
WTF??

The largest majority in nearly a century and we are helpless.

THAT is why we lost..and why we will keep losing. Because the base, me, is wondering what the hell is the point to all of this. AFter busting tail in 2008, we can't get one piece of signature legislation because of ONE reasoon...POOR LEADER SHIP!!

I give up. I am no longer a Democrat...

Don't call me until you get your act together.

Sorry, Obama Was Wrong to Bow. So Was Reagan.

As an Obama fan, I can say that he did "royally" screw up. American citizens should never bow to royalty. We are always expected to bend over backwards to not offend other cultures, WHICH I DON'T MIND! After all, we are American. It is who we are. It is one reason the world looks up to us.

We don't have many of our own customs...we are still a young country and very heterogeneous. But one of our very few customs stems from our founding belief that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL.

We never bow, we never courtsey.

We don't dip Old Glory either in ceremonies, but you get the drift.

It is entirely respectful for a subject of a monarch to bow, even if the monarch is a figurehead. A British national courtsies to her Queen or a Japaneese citizen bows to his emperor. But Americans do not have, nor recognize, monarchs. That is why it is appropriate to shake hands and smile, but never bow. Other countries should realize that as Americans, we don't believe in monarchs.

Yes, Obama was wrong. But all of these conservatives yelling foul are the same idiots who dismissed Ronald Reagan NOT ONLY BOWING but also BEING KNIGHTED BY THE QUEEN. This is not only wrong, but illegal.

Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution says: "No title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

Be consistent, hypocrites.

The real story of yesterday's defeat...

When Bush was fucking up our country for 8 years,
when he was shredding the Constitution with illegal MASSIVE wiretaps on ordinary Americans,
when he was breaking every treaty we had with every country,
when he turned his back on our forefathers and condoned, even promoted, torture,
when he spent nearly a trillion dollars in a made-up war with Iraq, the bulk of which went to corrupt cronies or was just lost,
when he turned our glorious nation into a pariah state,

we were told by the GOP wingnuts that any dissent at all amounted to treason...

we were told we must want the terrorists to win...

we were told that we hated America.

Fast forward to yesterday, October 2, 2009. The media is trying its best to spin the story that Rio's win is Obama's embarrassment. Some, like FAUX News, are even trying to spin this as Obama's fault...even though a hundred speeches to Copenhagen wouldn't have changed the result.

The pundits are saying we should want to try to put this day behind us.

I say just the opposite.

We should use this day to beat their smug heads in. Because that is the day that the rethugs showed their true colors.

It is the first day they OPENLY cheered for America's defeat.

I have read blog posts on experiences that were similar to mine--people at a McDonald's I was at (which plays FAUXNEWS) cheered and high-fived when the announcement came that we lost. The contrast between them and the Americans in Chicago weeping on screen was priceless...I wish I had brought a camera.

America lost. Not Obama. Not Chicago. That was OUR loss. Chicago was just the city selected by the USOC. It represented us. Just as Rio's loss would have been Brazil's. It was OUR loss.

Roland Martin said it best:

So, to all the critics happy about us losing the 2016 games, turn in your flag lapel pins and stop boasting of being so patriotic. When an American city loses, like New York did in the the last go-round, we all lose. And all you critics are on the same level as the America haters all across the world.

Here's the real deal. Any success President Obama has will showcase how miserably Bush and the republicans goverened while they were in power for the past several years.

Screw if it hurts the country. Screw if it kills people.
If our job outlook doesn't improve--that's fantastic!

If Rush's "phony soldiers" are killed in Afghanistan...even better! It's Obama's war now!

If Americans by the millions continue to lose their health insurance and are forced to watch their loved ones die while KNOWING there are procedures out there...screw em!

A terrorist attack validating Cheney...that would be the BESTEST EVER!

America fails...HaHaHaHa (Actual quote from Erik E. from Redstate).

America failing isn't just the hope of these bastards, THEY ARE COUNTING ON IT for their survival and their return to power. Because they know if, God forbid, the Democrats actually find the spine to carry out their solutions to the past 8 years of GOP problems that are currently drowning this nation...then they will never get to return to power again.

Given the choice between America's future and their survival, they have chosen survival... at any cost.

If we had a 24-hour network like the GOP does, this would be the story--not how Chicago's loss is somehow a referendum on Obama.

But unlike the storyline we are being fed from the mainstream media, this should not bee seen as an "embarrassment" that we want to shy away from. It is a validation of who these bastards really are and what their agenda really is.

Let's make sure October 2, 2009 is a day that we won't let them forget...

Obama's Health Care Speech: full text and video

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Madame Speaker, Vice President Biden, Members of Congress, and the American people:

When I spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. Credit was frozen. And our financial system was on the verge of collapse.
As any American who is still looking for work or a way to pay their bills will tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. A full and vibrant recovery is many months away. And I will not let up until those Americans who seek jobs can find them; until those businesses that seek capital and credit can thrive; until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes. That is our ultimate goal. But thanks to the bold and decisive action we have taken since January, I can stand here with confidence and say that we have pulled this economy back from the brink.

I want to thank the members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months, and especially those who have taken the difficult votes that have put us on a path to recovery. I also want to thank the American people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation.

But we did not come here just to clean up crises. We came to build a future. So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future - and that is the issue of health care.

I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform. And ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. A bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943. Sixty-five years later, his son continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.

Our collective failure to meet this challenge - year after year, decade after decade - has led us to a breaking point. Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can't get insurance on the job. Others are self-employed, and can't afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.
We are the only advanced democracy on Earth - the only wealthy nation - that allows such hardships for millions of its people. There are now more than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two year period, one in every three Americans goes without health care coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone.
But the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem of the uninsured. Those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today. More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you'll lose your health insurance too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won't pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.

One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about. They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it. Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne. By the time she had her insurance reinstated, her breast cancer more than doubled in size. That is heart-breaking, it is wrong, and no one should be treated that way in the United States of America.
Then there's the problem of rising costs. We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren't any healthier for it. This is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages. It's why so many employers - especially small businesses - are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance, or are dropping their coverage entirely. It's why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place, and why American businesses that compete internationally - like our automakers - are at a huge disadvantage. And it's why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it - about $1000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care.
Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. When health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close.

These are the facts. Nobody disputes them. We know we must reform this system. The question is how.

There are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like Canada's, where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everyone. On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

I have to say that there are arguments to be made for both approaches. But either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch. And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over the past several months.

During that time, we have seen Washington at its best and its worst.

We have seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. Of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work, and the Senate Finance Committee announced today that it will move forward next week. That has never happened before. Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors' groups and even drug companies - many of whom opposed reform in the past. And there is agreement in this chamber on about eighty percent of what needs to be done, putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been.

But what we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.

Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed. Now is the season for action. Now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together, and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. Now is the time to deliver on health care.

The plan I'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals:

It will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance to those who don't. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government. It's a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge - not just government and insurance companies, but employers and individuals. And it's a plan that incorporates ideas from Senators and Congressmen; from Democrats and Republicans - and yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election.

Here are the details that every American needs to know about this plan:
First, if you are among the hundreds of millions of Americans who already have health insurance through your job, Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.
What this plan will do is to make the insurance you have work better for you. Under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. As soon as I sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it most. They will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or a lifetime. We will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they get sick. And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care, like mammograms and colonoscopies - because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.

That's what Americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan - more security and stability.

Now, if you're one of the tens of millions of Americans who don't currently have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange - a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for millions of new customers. As one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain with the insurance companies for better prices and quality coverage. This is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. It's how everyone in this Congress gets affordable insurance. And it's time to give every American the same opportunity that we've given ourselves.

For those individuals and small businesses who still cannot afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, we will provide tax credits, the size of which will be based on your need. And all insurance companies that want access to this new marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections I already mentioned. This exchange will take effect in four years, which will give us time to do it right. In the meantime, for those Americans who can't get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical conditions, we will immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become seriously ill. This was a good idea when Senator John McCain proposed it in the campaign, it's a good idea now, and we should embrace it.

Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those - particularly the young and healthy - who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for those people's expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek - especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions - just can't be achieved.

That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance - just as most states require you to carry auto insurance. Likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the cost of their workers. There will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still cannot afford coverage, and 95% of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. But we cannot have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system by avoiding responsibility to themselves or their employees. Improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part.
While there remain some significant details to be ironed out, I believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan I just outlined: consumer protections for those with insurance, an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance.

And I have no doubt that these reforms would greatly benefit Americans from all walks of life, as well as the economy as a whole. Still, given all the misinformation that's been spread over the past few months, I realize that many Americans have grown nervous about reform. So tonight I'd like to address some of the key controversies that are still out there.

Some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. The best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts, but prominent politicians, that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. Such a charge would be laughable if it weren't so cynical and irresponsible. It is a lie, plain and simple.

There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false - the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up - under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.

My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a "government takeover" of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly-sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.

So let me set the record straight. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly - by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.

Insurance executives don't do this because they are bad people. They do it because it's profitable. As one former insurance executive testified before Congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill; they are rewarded for it. All of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called "Wall Street's relentless profit expectations."

Now, I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. I just want to hold them accountable. The insurance reforms that I've already mentioned would do just that. But an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not-for-profit public option available in the insurance exchange. Let me be clear - it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. No one would be forced to choose it, and it would not impact those of you who already have insurance. In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.

Despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. They argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. And they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won't be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects. But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.

It's worth noting that a strong majority of Americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort I've proposed tonight. But its impact shouldn't be exaggerated - by the left, the right, or the media. It is only one part of my plan, and should not be used as a handy excuse for the usual Washington ideological battles. To my progressive friends, I would remind you that for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage affordable for those without it. The public option is only a means to that end - and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. And to my Republican friends, I say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have.

For example, some have suggested that that the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. Others propose a co-op or another non-profit entity to administer the plan. These are all constructive ideas worth exploring. But I will not back down on the basic principle that if Americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.

Finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, to members of this chamber, and to the public - and that is how we pay for this plan.

Here's what you need to know. First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits - either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I'm serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don't materialize. Part of the reason I faced a trillion dollar deficit when I walked in the door of the White House is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for - from the Iraq War to tax breaks for the wealthy. I will not make that same mistake with health care.

Second, we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system - a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. Right now, too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care doesn't make us healthier. That's not my judgment - it's the judgment of medical professionals across this country. And this is also true when it comes to Medicare and Medicaid.

In fact, I want to speak directly to America's seniors for a moment, because Medicare is another issue that's been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate.

More than four decades ago, this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years. That is how Medicare was born. And it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. That is why not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan.
The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud, as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies - subsidies that do everything to pad their profits and nothing to improve your care. And we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead.

These steps will ensure that you - America's seniors - get the benefits you've been promised. They will ensure that Medicare is there for future generations. And we can use some of the savings to fill the gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their own pocket for prescription drugs. That's what this plan will do for you. So don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut - especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against Medicare in the past, and just this year supported a budget that would have essentially turned Medicare into a privatized voucher program. That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.

Now, because Medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody. We have long known that some places, like the Intermountain Healthcare in Utah or the Geisinger Health System in rural Pennsylvania, offer high-quality care at costs below average. The commission can help encourage the adoption of these common-sense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system - everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors.
Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this plan. Much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. This reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies, which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money - an idea which has the support of Democratic and Republican experts. And according to these same experts, this modest change could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long-run.

Finally, many in this chamber - particularly on the Republican side of the aisle - have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the cost of health care. I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. I know that the Bush Administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these issues. It's a good idea, and I am directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.
Add it all up, and the plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years - less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few Americans that Congress passed at the beginning of the previous administration. Most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent - but spent badly - in the existing health care system. The plan will not add to our deficit. The middle-class will realize greater security, not higher taxes. And if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just one-tenth of one percent each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term.

This is the plan I'm proposing. It's a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight - Democrats and Republicans. And I will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.

But know this: I will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than improve it. I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in the plan, we will call you out. And I will not accept the status quo as a solution. Not this time. Not now.

Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true.

That is why we cannot fail. Because there are too many Americans counting on us to succeed - the ones who suffer silently, and the ones who shared their stories with us at town hall meetings, in emails, and in letters.

I received one of those letters a few days ago. It was from our beloved friend and colleague, Ted Kennedy. He had written it back in May, shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. He asked that it be delivered upon his death.
In it, he spoke about what a happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife, Vicki, and his children, who are here tonight . And he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform - "that great unfinished business of our society," he called it - would finally pass. He repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity, but he also reminded me that "it concerns more than material things." "What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country."

I've thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days - the character of our country. One of the unique and wonderful things about America has always been our self-reliance, our rugged individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government. And figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and sometimes angry debate.
For some of Ted Kennedy's critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to American liberty. In their mind, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government.

But those of us who knew Teddy and worked with him here - people of both parties - know that what drove him was something more. His friend, Orrin Hatch, knows that. They worked together to provide children with health insurance. His friend John McCain knows that. They worked together on a Patient's Bill of Rights. His friend Chuck Grassley knows that. They worked together to provide health care to children with disabilities.

On issues like these, Ted Kennedy's passion was born not of some rigid ideology, but of his own experience. It was the experience of having two children stricken with cancer. He never forgot the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick; and he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance; what it would be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent - there is something that could make you better, but I just can't afford it.

That large-heartedness - that concern and regard for the plight of others - is not a partisan feeling. It is not a Republican or a Democratic feeling. It, too, is part of the American character. Our ability to stand in other people's shoes. A recognition that we are all in this together; that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lend a helping hand. A belief that in this country, hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play; and an acknowledgement that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise.

This has always been the history of our progress. In 1933, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it. In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down. They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.

You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter - that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.

What was true then remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road - to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.

But that's not what the moment calls for. That's not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it. I still believe we can act even when it's hard. I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility, and gridlock with progress. I still believe we can do great things, and that here and now we will meet history's test.

Because that is who we are. That is our calling. That is our character. Thank you, God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America.

To GOP: Support Obama, Come up with your own plan, or get out of the way!

Paul Begala has a great article on CNN that should be seen by everyone:

I love Alex Castellanos. Heck, somebody has to. Truth is, we've been known to break bread after our CNN gigs. He is engaging and amusing and whip-smart.

But when he said Tuesday night on CNN that President Obama is already looking like a one-term president, he's full of more beans than a burrito at Matt's El Rancho back home in Austin, Texas.

Obama inherited an ungodly mess: a $1.2 trillion deficit, an economy that was careening from recession into depression, a collapse in effective demand, the disintegration of the real estate market and a financial meltdown that spanned the globe and brought multibillion-dollar institutions to their knees. That's not to mention Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea and the Mexican drug war.

If this were "Sesame Street," the announcer would be saying, "This program brought to you by the letters G, O and P." None of the crises the president is addressing were of his creation. All of them were created or worsened by the Republicans who ran the House of Representatives, Senate and White House for years.

And so the American people turned to Obama to bring change -- and change he has brought. He's moving on all fronts: addressing the housing foreclosure crisis, the banking crisis, the unemployment crisis. Did I mention that all of these crises were courtesy of the Republicans who ran this country for years? Good.

Got it so far? The Democrats are cleaning up their awful mess. So what does the GOP do? They attack us for, get this, having TOO MANY IDEAS! Mitch McConnell’s spokesperson announced that the GOP will start attacking the Obama administration for "throwing out too many ideas" on the economy:

Now the Republicans have what we Texans call the chutzpah to criticize Obama for doing too much. Maybe, just maybe, he wouldn't have to be fixing so many problems if the Republicans hadn't created so many problems.

The Republicans are like an arsonist who complains that the fire department is wasting water. Obama is trying to handle an immediate crisis while also laying the foundation for long-term growth. The Republicans are doing neither. They have no plan to stop the loss of jobs or to get capital markets functioning properly -- and they certainly have no plans for health care, education or energy, which are the keys to both long-term economic growth and long-term deficit reduction.

AMEN!

All the energy -- indeed all debate -- is on the progressive side of the aisle. The Obama administration's only intellectual challengers are on the left, where economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman and others are offering a vigorous critique and proposing alternative solutions. But where are the Republicans? Doing nothing but complaining. Unless and until they do offer an alternative, they really have no right to whine about the president. For now at least, GOP stands for "Got 0 Plans."

After years of having a president with no ideas, for someone to be taking charge on all fronts with ideas that actually help people--I guess that can be a bit overwhelming for some.

For My GOP Friends This Inauguration Day...

I thought I would be gloating this day, the way you did 8 years ago. Even though it was the closest election in history, and even though there was a cloud of illegitamacy, you guys wanted to rub our noses in W's victory. The speeches leading up to it were condescending, including one speech I vividly remember where the speaker said how great it felt to say "EX-president Clinton".

But this is a new day.

Not only will I not be gloating, I actually accept what you said so long ago... that God chose W. to be president. Let me explain...


Our country has a miraculous history. By all logic, our nation should not exist. We were a ragtag militia going up against the greatest military in the world. Yet we not only survived but flourished after the Revolutionary War. We had brilliant leaders like Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin who forged the path. We experimented with this crazy notion of letting the people, peasants, rule in a time of absolute monarchy. We became a beacon of hope for the world.

Amazingly, at our most perilous times, we have had great men lead us just when we needed them. James Madison during the War of 1812, Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War, Roosevelet for WWII, and Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Could you imagine what would have happened if we had James Buchanan, Martin Van Buren, or Franklin Pierce as the president during the Civil War?? Could you imagine if George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were in charge during the missile crisis? (*Shudder*)

There is probably only one time in history, however, where George W. Bush's black and white, absolute vision of good and evil would have worked--and that's after the attack of 9/11. Al Qaeda had no side, no justification--they were just pure evil. For the one and only time in his presidency, immediately after the aftermath, Bush said just the right things and we all had each other's back. That was just what we needed during that time.

Unfortunately, he squandered opportunity, bi-partisanship, and universal good will into a narrow-minded agenda. This, along with stunning incompetence and bad decisions, led our nation into what has been the darkest of times. Yet through fear-mongering, he streched his agenda into a second term.

But let me say this, if there was no darkness, there would be no light.

If there was no George W. Bush, there would be no Barack Obama today. Bush's stunning incompetence and bad judgment caused millions of Americans to conclude that ideology, even racism, were luxeries they could no longer afford.

In our short history, we have not only never elected a minority--we never elected anyone without an Anglo-Saxon name. But just like our nation, whose existence defies all logic, we now have not only an African-American getting ready to be sworn in, but one with the same/similar name as two of our national enemies. Given the powerful smears by association thrown at him by your machine, the obstacles he had to overcome were not just huge, they were monumental.

But because he showed how a president should act--a steady leader who made decisions based on sound logic instead of "gut" reactions, and because he talked to people like adults instead of lowly pests who need information "spun" to them, he won people over. And he didn't just win, he won big. Places like Indiana, Virginia, and North Carolina. I was awed on election night.

This is why we believe he can do anything.

I believe that old saying that it always gets the most dark before the light--and I do finally agree with you, my GOP friend, that this was all divinely planned. Like you, I believe our nation was founded "under God" and is blessed. And once again, we have been blessed by our selection of just the right leader in what is now another perilous time. Obama is ready to guide America out of crisis.

And even though you do not support him, he will help you too. And I am glad you can witness history with me.

No More Bush Bashing

The election is over.

It's time for us as Americans to come together and tackle this nation's problems.

I can't think of any benefit that will come by bashing McCain or George W. Bush. John McCain has given the most gracious concession speech I ever heard. I wondered if the outcome would be different if the American people were given the choice between Obama and the McCain we heard Tuesday night.

George W. Bush, in the tradition of his father, has been very gracious as well. He has gone above and beyond to ensure a smooth transition. His father set the standard when he offered to pick up Clinton on Air Force One after the election and pledged not to criticize him for a period of one year after he was sworn in. That became a nice tradition that once again made our nation the envy of the world. When candidates lose in other countries, they still fight----sometimes literally. Not here.

I will no longer be bashing George W. Bush. I am willing to allow history to be the judge.

I wish for healing, and my hope is that even though Barack Obama has large majorities in both the House and Senate, that he will govern in a bi-partisan fashion. Most good legislation is crafted with input from BOTH sides--and I fully expect the GOP and Obama to work together for the benefit of our nation.

I know that's asking a lot, but after Tuesday night, I truly do believe anything is possible

Correction: Seminole County Purple, Not Yet Blue

My jubilation over Barack's victory here in Seminole County was premature. I based it on a story I heard on the radio--apparently it was breaking blue but the final tally wasn't in. Well, the Sentinel reports today that McCain received 104, 885 votes compared to 99,140 for Obama. That's a difference of 5, 745 votes. My apologies.

Nonetheless, considering that the difference between Bush and Kerry was a whopping 31,201 votes in our small county, I would say that I can no longer claim this is a "blood red" county. More of a pinkish-purple...




OK--we turned Florida and the USA blue. But Seminole, we still got some work to do.

I wish Martin Luther King, JR was alive

Barack Obama won.

I have no words.

Your Words, GOP: "Back the President"

For 8 horrendous years, we were told we had to back Bush blindly because he was Commander in Chief. Any dissent was tantamount to treason. Backing Bush was equated with love of country, and criticism of Bush meant you were in league with the terrorists.

WELL.... start backing....

I can assume that any criticism of Barack Obama as president will be treated with the same disdain?

Clinton, Obama in My Hometown for the Closing Arguement!

Although it was late, tens of thousands showed up to listen to Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Bill Clinton, in his best praise of Obama, talked about how, during the financial crisis, Obama talked to economic advisors so that he could understand what was going on and respond appropriately. He contrasted this to the actions of both Bush and McCain: Pulling stunt after stunt or erradically shifting from one idea to the next (McCain) or just sticking the old noggin head in the sand and hoping for the best (Bush).

We need a president who WANTS to understand and CAN understand!!

Priceless.

OMG! ORLANDO SENTINEL endorses Barack!!

I am watching Powell endorse Senator Obama as I write this. What a great way to wake up.

I am looking at the Orlando Sentinel full page endorsement of Barack Obama! IF you don't know the Orlando Sentinel, you have to understand that they love to endorse Republicans. The joke on talk radio is usually "do what the Sentinel tells you and vote Republican".

With ONE exception, John Kerry, they have endorsed Republicans for president for the PAST 40 YEARS!! They also endorsed John McCain, but NOT Obama, (rather Hillary), several months ago in the respective primaries. I really didn't think they would do it.

The Sentinel even admitted that they wer leaning McCain as the primary season began, but changed thier mind over the events of the past several weeks.

While Obama showed "sound judgment" and "grace under pressure", Mr. McCain has reacted "haphazardly" and "abandoned" positions that the Sentinel had supported. Their words: Mr. McCain has demonstrated "shockingly poor judgment".

I encourage you to read the entire endorsement. It is a work of art. They contrast the difference between McCain when he started (when the Sentinel originally endorsed him) and McCain now; and also where Obama was then and where he is now. I won't put the entire endorsement here, but I will provide the portion under the heading "Obama Now":

Under months of unrelenting scrutiny and withering political attacks since then, the Democratic nominee has proved to be an unflappable and thoughtful leader. He has displayed a remarkable command of issues, both domestic and foreign. It's hard to imagine a quicker study.

Mr. Obama has wisely compensated for his relative inexperience by reaching out to experts, from billionaire investor Warren Buffett and former treasury secretaries for advice on economic policy to ex-national security advisers on foreign policy. He chose as his running mate Joe Biden, the veteran U.S. senator from Delaware and Foreign Relations Committee chairman. The contrast with Mr. McCain's choice for vice president could not be more striking.

Mr. Obama gets the nod in this race not just because of his opponent's flaws.

The Illinois senator has a better plan than the Arizona senator for expanding health-care coverage. Mr. Obama would focus on the problem -- uninsured Americans -- while strengthening the current system of employer-based care. Mr. McCain would unravel that system.

Mr. Obama also would be more aggressive in curbing America's dirty and dangerous addiction to petroleum by mounting an ambitious campaign to develop renewable energy. Mr. McCain says he favors alternatives to oil, but his "drill, baby, drill" fixation could prolong the nation's habit.

The Democratic nominee is more inclined to turn the page on the foreign policy of the past eight years that has alienated allies and incited enemies. His willingness to engage when necessary in tough negotiations with enemies is not naive or irresponsible; it's an approach followed before by presidents from both parties.

Since he began his meteoric rise in American politics, Mr. Obama's critics have trivialized his remarkable skills as a speaker. From Abraham Lincoln through Ronald Reagan, history has shown that eloquence is a powerful tool for presidents to rally Americans to get through tough times together and achieve great things.

If you have a moment, please PLEASE send a quite note of support to insight@orlandosentinel.com.This is a conservative area, and they are going to be bomarded with hate mail. When they endorsed John Kerry last time, you would have thought the apocalypse was upon us. Tons of letters came in complaining and hundreds of subscriptions were canceled.

I honestly thought they would cave like the idiotic endorsement of the Tampa Tribune yesterday. But they didn't. And I couldn't be more proud.

What a great morning.

LAST DAY TO REGISTER TO VOTE!! Ensure you weren't kicked off voter rolls!

Project Vote Smart has the info.

You should also go to VoteforChange to ensure that you are registered to vote. THOUSANDS of people have been removed from the voter rolls!! Logically, most have been Democrats. This site will tell you if you are good to go--if not, you need to fix it TODAY baby! Notices were supposed to have gone out, but if your name was "accidentally" removed and you don't fix it today, you are screwed.

PS--the site asks for an email--you don't have to give them one. Just look to see if you are registered.

PSS--New Florida ad from Obama campaign. Well done:

Congratulations Obama!

He won the debate.

I am a partisan, and I'm certain there are those on the other side who will say McCain won. And yes, there were no knockout blows, they both deflected the others' criticism, and neither one said a Palin-like gaffe that would have killed the campaign.

Although CNN and CBS had polls afterwards that Obama had performed better, I think most analysts are calling it a tie.

BUT that does not change the fact that Obama won the debate.

WHY?

Because McCain NEEDED TO WIN. He needed to hit this out of the park. He needed a game-changer. There are no more for him. The conventions are over, the veeps selected--the only thing left are the debates.

Palin will not be able to take down Biden. She will be lucky to be left standing. McCain will NOT be able to tangle with Obama on the economy. It's over. There are no more game-changers left.

The only chance McCain had was to knock out Obama on his supposed strong suit--foreign policy.

And he didn't. Most polls are showing Obama won--but in fact, at best, it was a tie. McCain is bleeding in the polls, he didn't need a tie-he needed a win. A big win.

And that is why Obama won.