dagblog - Comments for "Open Letter to President Obama"

One could wish, they would

Resistance — Thu, 13 Oct 2011 00:39:40 +0000

One could wish, they would send in Warren to do a Sherman's March, to overrun the deeply entrenched bulwarks, of the banker class.

Well she has admitted to

Beetlejuice — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:35:05 +0000

In reply to Excellent, well written

Well she has admitted to throwing rocks at people she doesn't like ... she just never said if she hit anyone and if it was hard enough to hurt like hell. But she's not afraid to take a stand and throw the first punch to defend her principles... something Obama lacks. That's a refreshing difference people will consider in a politician, especially if she decides to go for 2016 ... she has the compassion for the public and is willing to take Wall Street on and dress them down if given the authority. I'll be watching her closely once she's in the Senate ... she's smart enough to outwit everyone in the chamber once the playing field is level and I'll bet she's smart enough to find the weasel room necessary to side-step Senate decorum so she can step up to the podium and fire a few broadsides at them ... I just wonder which GOPer will break all decorum and physically hit her for her audacity at challenging them.

NOTE : before the southern states left the Union, there was an incident in the Senate where Representative Preston Brooks entered the Senate chamber and savagely beat Senator Charles Sumner into unconsciousness )

Without the support from

Beetlejuice — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 19:11:05 +0000

In reply to Gosh, I was about to suggest

Without the support from christian conservatives and other such religious GOPer offal, Romney doesn't stand a chance of winning in 2012. Mormonism is too ingrained in their perception as a cult that doesn't meet their criteria as christian. While they definitely won't vote for Obama, they most probably would stay at home instead of going to the polls and voting. Remember, it has been the chrisitan coalition that has put the GOPer's in the running since the days of Ronnie Raygun. Without them, a GOP candidate has a about as much of a chance of getting elected President as a run-of-the-mill street whore has a chance of going to heaven.

In fact, the GOPer's would be better off if Obama was elected for a second term. Since he easily capitulates everytime the GOPers throw down the gauntlet, all they need to do is win enough seats in both House and Senate to override a Presidential veto and ram thru whatever they please. And I'll bet that's what Christie is waiting for.

Fix the deficit, promote

erica20 — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:28:41 +0000

In reply to Mitt will position himself as

Fix the deficit, promote business, support "Christianity."

It's a ploy--get the Democrats off balance and onto a message that's more right wing/less based in reality than the Democratic base would support (bleeding off progressive support) then gallop to the right (with the chosen candidate) and leave the Democrats with very little support.

Mitt will position himself as

AmericanDreamer — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 15:04:24 +0000

In reply to Gosh, I was about to suggest

Mitt will position himself as the non-black Obama with all the business sense, a sanctioned religion, and none of that annoying progressive baggage--the candidate nobody loves but everyone can vote for, cause he seems willing to do what Obama himself said he wanted to do, but didn't.......

Which was...?

It appears you want to

Verified Atheist — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:50:25 +0000

In reply to I don't need to see Obama

It appears you want to sacrifice the country, because of your infatuation with Obama.

On the contrary, if you can give me a viable (and better) alternative, I'm all ears. Warren isn't viable in 2012, if for no other reason than that she won't run in 2012. Without the alternative vote, no third party is viable in 2012 (and there's no way we're getting the alternative vote by 2012). The only realistic alternative I see is a Republican president. Maybe you think that's no worse (if so, that's ignoring significant territory where it would be worse), but do you honestly think it'd be better?

But in this case, you'd

Donal — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:30:59 +0000

In reply to I don't need to see Obama

But in this case, you'd probably end up replacing McClellan with Stonewall Jackson - still fighting for the Confederacy.

You're concerned that Obama

Verified Atheist — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:26:26 +0000

In reply to You're concerned that Obama

You're concerned that Obama would be punished?

No, read what I wrote again.

My concern is for my country. I wouldn't mind seeing Obama punished, but I don't want it so bad that I'm willing to sacrifice my country for it. On the other hand, it seems that you are so mad at Obama, you need him to suffer even if it means getting a Republican elected and hurting the rest of us in the process. That's what I was comparing to Limbaugh, who famously hates Obama so much he wants our country to fail.

I don't need to see Obama

Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:17:21 +0000

In reply to You're concerned that Obama

I don't need to see Obama punished, I just don't have to put him back into a position where the country has to suffer, under his ineffective leadership.

Obama reminds me of the Civil War General, G. McClellan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_B._McClellan

"Early in the war, McClellan played an important role in raising a well-trained and organized army for the Union. Although McClellan was meticulous in his planning and preparations, these characteristics may have hampered his ability to challenge aggressive opponents in a fast-moving battlefield environment. He chronically overestimated the strength of enemy units and was reluctant to apply principles of mass, frequently leaving large portions of his army unengaged at decisive points.......His performance at the bloody Battle of Antietam blunted Lee's invasion of Maryland, but allowed Lee to eke out a precarious tactical draw and avoid destruction..."

The Civil War dragged on another anguishing 4 years and many were sacrificed; because McClellan hesitated. Instead of striking the foe, he sought to compromise.

Obama's inauguration should have warned us;, he didn't understand the enemy. Obama couldn't be the president of ALL the people; the Republicans hated him.

Obama seeking compromise and bi- partisanship, was all the hesitation the republicans needed.

To cover over his timidity,Obama said we need to move forward and not look back.

Never realizing, the Republicans having escaped a finishing defeat; they regrouped and outflanked us. Winning a decisive counter offensive at the midterm election.

Lincoln replaced McClellan; the American people need to replace Obama.

It appears you want to sacrifice the country, because of your infatuation with Obama.

It was just theory, AT,

Verified Atheist — Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:43:17 +0000

In reply to Can we at least admit that a

It was just theory, AT, surely you can appreciate that!

In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

Of course contributions make a difference. But, in theory, if 99% of the people voted for Obama, then it wouldn't matter if they made a contribution.