Obama: Not even close to the worst president ever.

[laurcunningham]

And why do you think we are in this economic crisis? Facts please.

I am guessing that you didn't pay even the slightest bit of attention to our years under Clinton, in comparison to our years under Bush. It's amazing to me to see people blame where we currently stand on Obama, without paying any attention to where we were when Bush first took office.

[laurcunningham]

Obama took a situation that was starting to become a critical one, and he hasn't even been president for two years and look at the state of our economy!

Really, Phillies? Looks like someone might want to take an economics class. The economy doesn't change overnight, and Obama started getting blamed right away for what happened when Bush was in office for EIGHT years.

I really want to argue right here with you vetwriter, but I don't see the point anymore. I agree with you, but unfortunately FOX News, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the wackjobs out there have done what they were planning to do. They've taken the uneducated, gullible, people in this country and fed them too many lies for them to see what's really happening in front of them. Of course Obama isn't at fault for the disgusting destruction that Bush created with this endless war we're involved with, but to the uneducated, Bush was a Christian savior and refuse to see the person he really is; a criminal.

[johnson1010]

interesting note.

hearing the same opinion 5 times from one person (Glenn Beck) is equivalent to the un-discriminating listener to hearing the same opinion from 5 different people. (trusted peers)

in other words, one odious talking head gives the impression of that opinion being mainstream when in reality it could be nothing but that one person's opinion.

and that's how fox news works.

[Kevin]

Obama is the worst president we have right now. The violence, the bombings, and the transfer of wealth to the top are his responsibilities. And arguing that he's better than W is a very low standard considering the rhetoric candidate Obama tossed around - and the opportunity it later afforded him. Day 1, wasn't it? - the signing of the Gitmo closure. Now it is just too important an asset for America to part with. A socialist is actually a moderately conservative American politician. There is a song called "B" Movie by Gil Scott-Heron in which the election of Ronald Reagan is considered to be the result of America wanting John Wayne and since he was unavailable settling for Reagan. A large portion of America wanted a socialist this last time and got a moderately conservative politician. It is a case of the chickens coming home to roost. The cartoon hatred of FOX is misplaced anger.

[Suzanne]

in other words, one odious talking head gives the impression of that opinion being mainstream when in reality it could be nothing but that one person's opinion.

and that's how fox news works.

And it does work. I have found these tactics to be trickling down into my local news stations. I live in the Philladelphia area and there is one local station where the anchor people will give their own personal opinion on the news and issues they broadcast. The broadcast actually stops, and the anchor will begin a monologue of how they feel about an issue. I'm sure they are told what to say by the producers of the program. I don't really care what these people have to say, but I am sure there are those who see these people on TV, believe they must be intelligent and well informed, and just believe what they say. That's sad, and dangerous. I'll be honest, sometimes I will watch this station, because these anchors just look like total fools and it's good for a laugh.

[Nouf]

Politics is not nice!

There is no such good president and bad especially in the U.S.A. I believe Obama might be more peaceful in his speeches like how he talk about integration between U.S and Muslims . there is a great shift in his policy that is different than Bush no doubt in that and you can see NSS

What make that people upset from him is that he talks so much but do little.

[Interbane]

The violence, the bombings, and the transfer of wealth to the top are his responsibilities.

The transfer of wealth part is simply not true. Obama has openly admitted that the wealth inequality is a problem. The groundwork for the inequality was laid over the last 3 decades, starting around the time TV was used for campaigns. It took a lot of money to run a campaign. When the regulatory agencies popped up in the 70's(EPA, OSHA, etc.), businesses organized and started lobbying to fight back. Eventually they supplied a large portion of campaign money, when a lot more was required to compete. In this way, they would influence regulation. Which they did.

Over the next few decades, their influence in Washington has strengthened, mainly on the far right. Which has shifted further right, by a considerable amount. There are right wing nutjobs out there who want nothing more than to deregulate business(even more!), eliminate minimum wage, fight a war with organized labor, undo the progressive income tax, and undo estate tax. They push this agenda as hard as possible. The shift to the right has also affected Democrats. Simply to compete for campaign money, policy stances had to shift. Lobbying does indeed affect all of Washington ubiquitously, but it has it's champions, who are clearly on the opposite side of the ring as Obama.

[johnson1010]

Say!

The GOP wasn't lying again about health care... were they?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110118/ap_ ... eck?ohnoes

"CBO says the health bill will result in lost jobs!"-GOP

"Due to retirement because they won't have to work through their golden years so they can have health care.." -CBO

[JulianTheApostate]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110118/ap_ ... eck?ohnoes

"CBO says the health bill will result in lost jobs!"-GOP

"Due to retirement because they won't have to work through their golden years so they can have health care.." -CBO

It's obnoxious that the GOP bill is called the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act", since there's no evidence that it would make unemployment worse. After all, if more people can afford to retire, there will be more jobs available to people who are searching for one.

Considering the real-world impact of the bill, it should be called the "Repealing the Life-Saving Health Care Law Act" or the "Killing Thousands Americans Every Year" act. It would be funny if the Democratic-controlled Senate gave the bill a title like that before voting on it, but Democrats aren't nearly as blazen as Republicans.

I wonder what fraction of people who want to repeal Health Care reform are aware that doing so would lead to more deaths.

[Kevin]

The violence, the bombings, and the transfer of wealth to the top are his responsibilities.

The transfer of wealth part is simply not true.

I think it is. What ever happened to "The buck stops here?" Good grief, it was the Democrat who had America nuke a civilian population center [EDIT: twice]who used it for a saying. But as an explanation, I'm not saying Obama caused the problem - he didn't have the opportunity - but that the best I can think of him since assuming office is that he's making things less worse than would, say, McCain. In a related matter neither do I blame Obama for the "the violence [and] the bombings" America inflicted in Iraq and surrounding and similar areas prior to his becoming president. It's the destruction since his election he is responsible for. He's the fricking president. These things are his responsibility. Whose else could they be? In a larger sense I would say the American public - but I don't get the sense you were going there with the comment.

Obama has openly admitted that the wealth inequality is a problem.

That means that it is his responsibility to fight against it. The various shades of we're doing what we can ring hollow. The moment of opportunity that the thought-to-be transitional president squandered (assuming for this moment that "change" was ever something more than a campaign slogan - and if for no other reason than for him to be the equivalent of the left's Reagan - if, that is, there was ever a vision at work - he should have shifted the country to the left and thus back to the center.) Oh that's right - it works, exclusively for the right. I'll tell you why - they fight.

The groundwork for the inequality was laid over the last 3 decades,

Yes, Reagan was both terrible and terribly effective. It's just that We Suck Less is a terrible thing for the Democrats to continue running on. They're heading for the same dance the Republicans are going to. The Democrats, in this scenario, function as the safety-relief valve for the Republicans during the times they happen to go particularly crazy. I think it's a reality-based view of things. A slightly more friendly fascism is a huge selling point for many. So in this disfunctional way the Democrats manage to carry on.

There are right wing nutjobs out there who want nothing more than to deregulate business(even more!), eliminate minimum wage, fight a war with organized labor, undo the progressive income tax, and undo estate tax.

And you are criticizing them for this? The Democrats may not know it yet, but wait until the polls tell them, so to speak, that it just isn't feasible to fight for single payer or even a public option - they'll see the light, get realistic, and argue for a similar, slightly gentler, spraying of the poor or whomever it is that happens to be in harm's way.

They push this agenda as hard as possible.

Well good for them!

The shift to the right has also affected Democrats.

Really? (rhetorical) Srly though, I enjoy reading your posts. I think you're level-headed even though the rest of my post reads to the opposite effect.