Thanks for fleshing out that anecdote. Of course, I didn’t misquote because the quote is, as you point out, correct. As was the circumstances of its use. It still reflects exactly what my point in the piece was. Sorry you missed it. Or didn’t read it. Or couldn’t read it.

This article had absolutely nothing to do with blaming Obama for anything - which makes your comment look ludicrous and proves my point about excessive partisanship on both the right and the left.

ed.

Harry Truman had the best policy of all Presidents.

Scorched Earth.

Think Iran. 10,000 degrees in 5 seconds or less. Israel, what are YOU waiting for? It’ll be over before Obama can finish his Breakfast!!

I do not disagree with your assessment - that does not change the fact that Obama is an empty suit tending to vote “Present” on any issue that is not on the Left’s watch list.

A major factor in 2012 will be the absense of the “Anti-Bush” fever which Obama pushed so hard and which powered the lefts’ get-out-the-vote surge, drove Independents to Obama, and even drew RINOs into the Obama camp. That factor will not be in play.

Regardless of the economy recovering, it is incumbent upon the Republicans to find an opponent for Obama worthy of the office and not because it is “His turn” (ala Bob Dole/John McCain). Without that, 2012 could turn into another 1996 - where Clinton won by default.

Corporations are, by definition, the ultimate whores. They exist to preserve themselves and produce cash any way they can get it. If they can get a better deal from Ds than Rs, they’ll do so, and they’ll make it sound like the regulations that cement their business models or the fat wad of cash they got from Congress is the socially responsible action in the history of the Republic.

If Obama would be like you describe him we should easily beat him. However, that won’t be the case, so instead of wishful thinking why not try realistic assessments. If the economy recovers it is his election to loose, fair or unfair that’s just the way it goes.

‘Nuff said.

*Yawn*

Yeah, right - Whatever!

Actually, neither is the party of personal empowerment, although you’ll find somewhat more “empowerment-minded” politicians in the R party than the D party, which is all about bureaucrats, lawyers, race-baiters, and sundry free-lunchers.

You mean free lunch like tax breaks for oil companies, anti-trust exemptions for the insurance industry, tax havens for multi-nationals, defense contracts for weapons that don’t work, and support for firms that shield themselves from responsibility if their employees commit rape?

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her Halliburton/KBR co-workers while working in Iraq and locked in a shipping container for over a day to prevent her from reporting her attack. The rape occurred outside of U.S. criminal jurisdiction, but to add serious insult to serious injury she was not allowed to sue KBR because her employment contract said that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration–a process that overwhelmingly favors corporations.

This year, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment that would deny defense contracts to companies that ask employees to sign away the right to sue. It passed, but it wasn’t the slam dunk Jon Stewart expected. Instead the amendment received 30 nay votes all from Republicans. “I understand we’re a divided country, some disagreements on health care. How is ANYONE against this?” He asked.

That kind of free lunch?

However, the argument between us should really be about which form of government is more effective and I would disagree with you in that area.

A perfectly reasonable argument.

More Republicans should try it instead of the whole Obama as Manchurian Candidate - Gurkha Assassin - Hillary Secret Lesbian killer approach.