Now
A Few Clouds
16°
High
35°
Low
31°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Opinion > Letters
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Letters, 11/16: Not a mandate

Comments 45 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Sunday, Nov 16, 2008 - 12:45:49 am CST

Well, it starts all over again. Just like when Nancy Pelosi took over in the House, the Democrats are carrying on about their “mandate” for America.

I have read about it, heard about it, and I am already sick of it. Those who voted for an untested, unknown man with a questionable background are crowing about his “mandate” (defined as “a command or an authorization given by a political electorate to its representative.”) A letter (LJS, Nov. 11) goes on about the huge electoral vote difference and how it is a “defining” victory.

Everyone knows that even with a very small majority of the popular vote, most states give all the electoral votes to one person. The truth is that 53 percent of the people who did vote voted for Barack Obama and 46 percent voted for John McCain. That is not a huge victory.

Very nearly half of the voting public prefer McCain and his ideas. Yet according to the letter, the whole country is better off today. I disagree, and 46 percent of the people have the same opinion as mine.

Jim Harnly, Seward

Concentrate on prevention

That the governor had to convene a special session of the Nebraska Legislature to address the abandonment of youths, not only infants, under provisions of the safe haven law should reveal how naïve and divorced from reality the people and their elected representatives really are.

The fact that parents are prepared to travel considerable distances for the purpose of abandoning their children should be telling us something about our reproductive and demographic policies. Anyone can breed, but not everyone is able to raise a child in a careful, responsible and loving manner. Sexual intercourse is the easy part; the consequences are far less so.

Furthermore, no parents can be forced to love a child they do not want — forced love is not love, and the consequences for the child are forever etched.

Rather than focusing on the cure, we should be concentrating on prevention.

Stuart N. Luttich, Geneva

Embrace a new politician

Barack Obama has been a beacon for many, me among them. I have followed his campaign since he announced — his messages have never wavered. He has consistently called on all of us to participate in renewing the American promise, to volunteer, to do our part. I am uplifted by his belief in mankind — and I think his message calls not just to Americans but to the world.

His promises for tax cuts and other administrative issues will be effected through working within the executive/legislative/judicial branches of government. Success depends on the cooperation and willingness of others to have open dialogue with personal issues set aside, and on those he appoints to carry out the tasks.

He cannot do it alone, and our part is to support those ideals we believe in (whether aligned with his or not) and help in the process through communication with our representatives and through our combined energy of hope that this world can be a kinder and better place for all.

I find Obama to be both transformational and a servant leader. One thing I know is that vision and the ability to inspire others to reach for difficult goals is a sign of good leadership. Obama knows he isn’t the end-all-be-all and thus seeks counsel and discussion for good decision-making (avoiding groupthink and other pitfalls). I hope people don’t assume he will behave as other politicians have behaved, limiting his potential and driving a wedge into what he hopes to accomplish.

When he spoke at the Girls Inc. luncheon in 2005, I felt we were in the presence of someone who could make a real difference — to right the course — someone whose life experiences had prepared him for this journey. I personally felt I was in the presence of greatness. I am uplifted by the unity created from this election.

I fear for and pray for his safety and well being from those who would do him harm. And I choose to hold onto and promote this goodness that goes beyond tax cuts or other day-to-day burdens. We are given a chance to transcend to a higher paragon. We should embrace it and nurture it.

SuAnn Witt, Papillion

Other side of the bubble

Financial meltdown! Soaring unemployment! Recession! Depression? Newspaper headlines seem to be full of bleak news every single day. It seems prudent not to follow the crowd and panic but rather to study recent history and realize we are in a bubble-based economy and learn how to profit by it.

In the 1990s, the technology bubble formed, and it popped in 2000. Then the real estate bubble formed and popped in 2007. The next bubble forming is alternative energy: solar and wind power, electric cars, power grid upgrades, biofuels. The list is building, and opportunities will abound for investors and job seekers alike in the coming decade.

Ed Schmersal, Lincoln

Time for some action

During the campaign season, candidates at every level have talked about the need to reduce the tax and regulatory burden on small businesses. That discussion is welcome. As the owner of a small business in the real estate industry, I appreciate the talk, but what I would rather have is action.

Nowhere is the need greater than in the area of reducing telecommunication taxes, especially mobile phone taxes and fees. My employees and I rely on our mobile phones to operate as we travel to meet the clients, provide services and conduct general business. Countless other small businesses operate the same way.

Nebraska has the highest mobile phone taxes and fees in the country. In Omaha, total taxes and fees add a whopping 23 percent to our monthly mobile phone bill. Hopefully, those elected in November will move from talking about this issue to actually getting something done about it.

John Bredemeyer, Omaha

Common sense

Common sense is not our government’s strong suit. We will bail out the auto industry, credit card companies, California, New York City and many others before we tackle the heart of the problem — bad mortgages.

Don’t count on the bailouts being done with common sense. Rather than force Ford, General Motors and Chrysler to confront the UAW for big concessions first, government will give the companies blank checks out of which we the taxpayers will pay the $70 per hour wage and grotesque retirement and health care benefits that brought this industry to its knees in the first place.

Jim Raymond, Gering


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Letters > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Max wrote on November 16, 2008 1:53 am:
" I agree, Mr. Harnly. No mandate. But just for some historical perspective, Obama did have a higher percentage of votes than:
1824-Adams(30.9%), 1836-Van Buren(50.8%), 1844-Polk(49.5%), 1848-Taylor(47.3%), 1852-Pierce(50.8%), 1856-Buchanan(45.3%), 1860-Lincoln(39.8%), 1876-Hayes(47.9%), 1880-Garfield(48.3%), 1884-Cleveland(48.5%), 1888-Harrison(47.8%), 1892-Cleveland(46.0%), 1896-McKinley(51.0%), 1900-McKinley(51.6%), 1908-Taft(51.6%), 1912-Wilson(41.8%), 1916-Wilson(49.2%), 1948-Truman(49.6%), 1960-Kennedy(49.7%), 1968-Nixon(43.4%), 1976-Carter(50.1%), 1980-Reagan(50.7%), 1992-Clinton(43.0%), 1996-Clinton(49.2%), 2000-Bush(47.9%), 2004-Bush(50.7%)

A lot of people had a problem in 2000 when there were more ballots cast for the losing candidate than the current president. His inaugural address spoke of unity and working together, yet that never seemed to happen. I hope Obama does a better job to get people to work together and make compromises. That would be huge change. "

 A little research please.... wrote on November 16, 2008 3:07 am:
" Jim Harnly, please do yourself a favor and look at the numbers and learn the meaning of the words you transcribe. Obama won the election by a popular vote margin equal to 3.23 TIMES the vote margin of both of W's "victories" COMBINED (if you'll recall, Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000, by over half a million votes). He won by the highest percentage of the popular vote in 20 years.
Additionally, "mandate" is defined (the noun, in the appropriate context) as "the commission that is given to a government and its policies through an electoral victory." How is Obama's victory anything BUT this? Is it your contention that a candidate must secure the votes of ALL voters in order to govern? Please, a little more research before you put pen to paper next time - or at least a little more independent thought. "

 Mindless Robot wrote on November 16, 2008 4:44 am:
" With all due respect Mr. Harnly, the Presidential election was only one piece of the pie.

Senate - Dem +6 (probably +7 and perhaps +8)
House - Dem +21

Republicans were thrashed in every way.

Furthermore, if the Republican Party could declare a Mandate (and oh yes they did)in the 2004 Presidential Election with a 2.4% popular vote and 35 electoral vote advantage shouldn't that be extended to the 2008 Presidential Election where the Democratic Party received a 8% popular vote and 203 electoral vote advantage? "

 1964 wrote on November 16, 2008 5:52 am:
" I remmember another President who sold us a bill of goods we are still paying for today. President Johnson (D) founded his "Great Society" and as well as enlarging the Vietnam War declared a "War on Poverty". The Great Society was the birth of the "Nanny State" with the promise of wellfare and government dependance, and we are now on the third generation of dependants. And there is still no victory or end in sight on his War on Poverty, where is the exit stategy there. Obama is selling us on the same idea. A War on Poverty fought on the backs of the rugged individuals who dare to succeed in our nation. So here we are still at war with poverty, and another individual with the failed stategy of "limited socialism" attempting to solve all the nations ills. What is the Legacy of the "Great Society" and the "War on Poverty", a pure dependant on government class who only vote for the benifits provided, and the provider of those promised benifits, Barrack Obama. Look at the maps, the urban areas (major concentration of government dependant) go Obama, the rural areas of the working man and rugged individual went McCain. Pretty obvious what the "mandate" is, more government dependance programs and an enlargement of the "nanny state" and the 51% allways voting for thier benifits paid for by the ever shrinking successfull individual. "

 DB wrote on November 16, 2008 6:01 am:
" Jim, Jim, Jim. How short of a memory. I remember clearly back in 2004 after Bush won the election that he won 51% of the vote and that was a mandate and the republicans agreed. Bush won 51% to 48% ( 3% difference )and claimed it was a mandate and you say a 53% to 46% is not?

You say Obama is untested with a questionable background but what about Bush? He was untested before he was elected president and with a questionable background, ie: his association with the Bin Laden family and his failure in the oil business.

The people of this country have spoken and have rejected the failed policies of the republican party and wanted a change. Why don't we give Obama a chance before you try to bash him. The country gave Bush 3 years of support until he lied about Iraq. "

 Obama supporter in Papillion wrote on November 16, 2008 6:46 am:
" We should all support Obama and his administration 100% during the next 4 years. Millions of misguided Republicans are wrong that George W. Bush's descent into desperately low approval ratings is simply the "price Mr. Bush is paying for trying to work with Democrats and Republicans."

For several years every poll has shown that a large and rising majority of Americans are fed up with this president and all Republicans. With Bush's unnecessary and mismanaged war in Iraq, his failing war in Afghanistan, the permanent stain of Guantanamo, the incompetence displayed in response to Hurricane Katrina, spending us into an economic black hole, and his shortsighted energy policies, he has earned his tattered reputation.

It is not for sheer spite that tens of millions of Americans who once supported Mr. Bush and the Republican party no longer do. It will be Mr. Bush's arrogance -- his socially and culturally divisive political tactics, unilateralism abroad, and abuse of executive power -- and not that of his detractors (as millions of misguided Republicans suggest) that will haunt this nation long after Bush and the Republicans have left office. "

 Bubba says wrote on November 16, 2008 7:23 am:
" It was mandate, Jim. How is it that only a few of who backed the losing candidate keep blubbering on and on about it not being a mandate. Heck, even your Bush said after the 2004 election that he had "earned political capital" and now he intended to use it. That's what Bush meant in 2004, and that is clearly what we (Obama voter/supporters) are saying it means today. And even though Bush really didn't win the 2000 election, he was able to use it as a springboard for his political career or a very long extended vacation. So, Jim, you sir are wrong and Obama does have a mandate. To clear out the rif raf and clean up the mess created by Bush. Not gonna be an easy task, either. "

 JK wrote on November 16, 2008 7:27 am:
" Jim what kind of wages are we tax payers paying over paid CEO's & upper
managment???? Besides the umberalla plan for the CEO's that many of them
grandchildren will be benefitting. What about the board of Directors, they need to be brought up to the task for their part in the over paid
CEO's. I assume you met that the upper management are the ones receiving
$70 per hour wages, grotesque retirement & health care benefits. I seen
your type at work in the legislature, putting our tales that the employees
for a company were making a huge wage that was so outlandish, that anyone
dumb enough to believe it are undereducated or gullible. What's your real
beef SIR??? "

 MarkyMark wrote on November 16, 2008 7:34 am:
" What Jim says about the 7% margin of victory is pretty much true.

Still wondering though, why George W. Bush lost the poplular vote to Al Gore, and proceeded to claim a mandate of which arrogance, I hope we never see again. "

 70 dollars an hour wrote on November 16, 2008 7:55 am:
" Where did that figure come from? A fowarded email? UAW average hourly rate last year was $27 per hour. "

 Dan from Milford wrote on November 16, 2008 8:05 am:
" Jim, you're letter could of been written in 2000, except the vote was alot closer then, and extremely questionable. Remember the debacle in Florida? That didn't stop Bush from acting like he had some kind of mandate. Remember him saying he was the "decider".Give Obama a chance. He would have to screw up big time to be worse than what we already have. Maybe a little cheese would be in order for you right wingers to go along with your whine. "

 pk wrote on November 16, 2008 8:05 am:
" I agree with Jim from Seward. Barack Obama is not the man who will lead the US to victory in Iran and on the Russian Front. Mr. Obama just doesn't have what it takes to reduce taxes even more on the CEO's whose clutch policy decisions day in and out result in our stable economy. Mr. Obama just won't institute the draft which is necessary to keep America the #1 most awesome shock and awe force in the world. He's just too eggheady to involve us in the necessary battles it takes to show the world that we are #1. "

 JT wrote on November 16, 2008 8:32 am:
" Jim, President Bush claimed a mandate while squeaking by Sen. Kerry. The fact is a 52-46 win is a large spread in recent presidential elections. "

 Jim mccain almost won harnly wrote on November 16, 2008 8:34 am:
" but, but, but, Obama didn't win by that much!!! oh wait, using your thinking, then recall that bush didn't win at all in 2000 since Gore got 48.38% of the vote to W's 47.87% - but see that whole electoral college thing comes into play. And guess what - Obama is indeed prez - like it or not. And the majority DID vote for him - like it or not.

Yes we can! "

 jo wrote on November 16, 2008 8:53 am:
" Jim

Without the racist tendencies in the southern states the GOP would not exist. Bush had less of the popular vote than gore and barely beat kerry so the margin of victory for Obama is OUTSTANDING. you lost I prayed that Obama would be president and GOD granted my prayers. I guess I prayed harder than you did. "

 peb wrote on November 16, 2008 11:00 am:
" Mr. Harnly never states what specifically he doesn't like about Obama other than he's an "untested, unknown man with a questionable background." We do know his background and it's not questionable. He was never arrested for a DUI, didn't go AWOL from his military service. He graduated at the top of his class from a very prestigious law school. He got to where he is purely on his "own bootstraps," not via his family's money or his wife's money. He owns one house instead of eight (or however many McCain owns). He has had only one wife so didn't cheat on one wife while courting the next. That tells me a whole lot. "

 Welcome to my World wrote on November 16, 2008 11:03 am:
" Mr. Harnly, Welcome to my world, that's exactly how I felt when this country voted Bush into office, twice!!. The second time I felt was more painful than the first.
McCain, made several blunders during his campaign. One of several blunders was in choosing Sara Palin. He might have had a chance if he had chosen someone more qualified. Rushing off and "suspending" his run to help the economic crisis was another blunder this showed how out of touch he was the week before that he said the economy was strong! But his biggest blunder was in voting with Current President Bush. Without realizing it at the time he was doing it he tanked his own bid.
This country is willing to take risks. It has done so in 200 plus years its history. Is President Elect Obama a risk? Sure any "new" President is a risk, we just have to give him a go, see how he will do.
He hasn't got an easy job ahead. The previous occupant has left him quite a mess. I'm willing to give him a whirl, in 4 years we will see where we are and then decide again. "

 The election is over wrote on November 16, 2008 11:19 am:
" I know the election is over. Dont' you wish everybody did? "

 I agree with prevention wrote on November 16, 2008 11:44 am:
" there shuold be a rule that if you abandon you child per the safe haven then they also schedule you an appointment to be sterilized. IF you don't want the child you are dropping off then you don't deserve the right to be able to have anymore. "

 CS wrote on November 16, 2008 12:50 pm:
" And in 2000 Al Gore had the popular vote and Bush had the Electoral and everyone that was a Republican seemed fine with letting Bush have the Presidency then, so why the change of heart? Republicans are the ones that seem to champion the winner take all system of the electoral college. What exactly do you want? Only two states divide their Electoral Votes, maybe its time the rest did to. Funny thing, though, the 'majority' needs to tell their representatives that that is what they want. So, either a majority of republicans don't want it this way, or there aren't a majority of republicans. "

 Jeff wrote on November 16, 2008 1:48 pm:
" Jim! The election is over. You're right about the lack of a mandate of course, and so were the democrats when they tried to point out the same thing after the last election. You can either hope for the best and keep an open mind about what the future holds, or you can fall in line with Rush and Shawn and dig your heels in and hope gridlock continues to be the norm in Washington. "

 Zoomie wrote on November 16, 2008 1:58 pm:
" Mr Raymond - please, give the union bashing a rest! If you want to place blame where it belongs and demand some real change for our tax dollars, demand the CEO's and corporate executives stop giving themselves literally billions in bonus' while refusing to adapt to change, or flat out mismanaging firms (ie. McCain's economic advisor Carly Fiorina who almost drove HP into the ground before being canned...but not before being awarded over $40 million just to go away!).

Mr Harnly - yes, Democrats DO have mandate! And the criteria that determines that was established years ago by the Republican party. When the GOP took control of House and Senate, with far less seats than Democrats, they proclaimed their victory was a mandate for conservatism, and the press agreed! Then when Bush won in 2004 (not in 2000, since Gore actually got more votes), we were told that too was a mandate (or have you forgotten). In case you've forgotten, this "mandate" in 2004 was for someone who got only 53% of the electoral votes (vs Obama's almost 70%) and who got only 50.7% of the popular vote (vs Obama's more than 53%, and that 53% came from a record US turnout). It's also worth noting that Obama won by the largest margin of the popular vote, for a non-incumbent, in over 50 years! So, sorry Jim, but by criteria set down by the Republican party for the last 14 years, Democrats have a CLEAR mandate to rule as they see fit (and did I mention the fact polls for months found that 60% of Americans agreed with Democratic positions -- and disagreed with Republican positions -- on 8 of the 10 most important issues to the American people?)! "

 OH wrote on November 16, 2008 2:53 pm:
" SuAnn, you must have been taking a few naps when your messiah was preaching!! And Mr. Bredemeyer, your right Nebraska has the highest taxes,
consumer costs, you name it, including medical costs that insurance won't
even pay the 80% that they do in all other states, as they told me Lincoln
& Nebraska costs were WAY ABOVE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE!!! Its time to get
out of this hole where people aren't so greedy. Oh you forgot, the state
has to buy brand new laptop computers to replace the OLD 4 yr. old ones.
Wish I could do that, but after having to pay WAY over the average medical costs, I do well to just eat!! "

 well jim wrote on November 16, 2008 3:53 pm:
" apparently your people didn't work hard enough. 64 million people said they wanted obama. Do you think all the reporters should vote for nebraska to be number one with a 7-4 record? Same thing. The people are tired of the same ol same ol and with john it would have been. The trickle down economics just don't work. Your hero reagan tried it and it didn't and it doomed georgie too. This country isn't about party lines its supposed to be for the people. Too bad so sorry your has been ole man and beauty queen won't be ruining the country for at least 4 years. Anything else ? HOw about mccains not wanting ethanol mandates? Bother you? Quit listening to rush and fox then whining. Want some cheese with the whine? Tough! get over it. "

 Shane wrote on November 16, 2008 4:05 pm:
" Gee Jim, I don't remember you writing with your concerns in 2004. After all the Republican candidate was elected President even though he did not have a majority of popular vote. (Even though he was an incumbant president) I seem to remember the Republicans and the Prresident claiming a "clear" victory. Funny didn't seem to "bother" you then "

 James wrote on November 16, 2008 4:38 pm:
" PK, by "eggheady", do you mean "smart"? "

 Ihrtlincoln wrote on November 16, 2008 4:51 pm:
" To 1964. Is 1964 when y'all started receiving farm subsidies? Nebraska is one state in our Union that benefits from the "Nanny State" concept. Every dollar we pay in federal taxes we receive anywhere from $1.10 to $1.20 back. This is in farm subsidies, highway funds, etc. Frankly, I like the stuff I get . . .after living in CA for the last 20 years receiving only 70 cents for every dollar paid in that state. Think we have bad roads? Try driving in SF. . . pothole heaven. I'm sure they would happily take their money back. Since most Nebraskans believe in self-sufficiency. "

 Rxwoman wrote on November 16, 2008 4:57 pm:
" Well, Jim, all I can tell you is if you don't like it...don't read it.
The fact of the matter is Obama won by a bigger percentage of the popular vote than Bush did in 04, than Reagan in 80( 50.7 %) Carter ( 50.1%) or Kennedy (49.7 to 49.6) in 1960. So, it wasn't exactly close, either.
The mandate, I believe, is taking into consideration the state elections , which went to the democrats as well.
And considering the gerrymandering of districts that the GOP have done the last few years, as well as the voting machine hi-jinks, Democrats have to win big to keep from having elections stolen again, as happened in 2000 and 2004.
So what appears as moderate percentage of win, is probably in all reality much larger.
Regardless, Obama won fair and square. He is our president-elect, and will be sworn in in January. Deal with it. "

 Matt wrote on November 16, 2008 5:08 pm:
" Mr. Harnly, you need to get a grip on history. A 53% vote is a landslide in popular vote terms. Its the most in over 6 elections. You may not want there to be a mandate, but the losing voter does not get to decide who has a mandate. It modern terms, I don't see how any reasonable minded person can say that the democrats don't have a mandate, especially when you see the sweeping victories in Congress that are in favor of the Democrats.

Just so you know, I voted for McCain,so I'm no liberal voter here. But if you are so delusional to think Obama doesn't have a mandate then you really need to educate yourself. "

 JohnR wrote on November 16, 2008 8:50 pm:
" And speaking of the Democratic mandate, come January, Democrats will be Governors of 29 states (58%) vs only 21 for Republicans (42%)...Sounds like another mandate by the American people for Democrats...AGAIN! "

 JR wrote on November 16, 2008 10:13 pm:
" Wanna know a secret? I can see the future. And I can teach you how, also. All you do is follow my simple rule and you will know in advance what letters to the editor will focus on days in advance. All you have to do is listen to the Limbaugh/Hannity/Savage blow hards and you too will know. Wait ... hold on .. I see a "Obama Recession" letter coming already blaming our economic crisis on our yet to take office President elect. It truly is a gift. "

 Sorry wrote on November 16, 2008 10:53 pm:
" After 8 years of Democratic obstruction and little or no co-operation I really do not feel the I as well as many on the right should take a "leap of faith" and give 100% co-operation to an untried or tested political amatuer who won this election based on a "cult of personality". He must prove himself, and any of our critisisums best not be labeled "racist" or "bigoted" because that will confirm what many of us believe. Making fun of Bush was the Democratic National Pastime, allow us the same freedom and latitude if deserved. "

 hello wrote on November 17, 2008 7:50 am:
" It is amazing to me that Mr. Harnly really thinks that all voters are informed about the candidates. I know many people that only vote for people in their party. How wrong is that? So just because the vote tally showed that there were a certain percent of votes for McCain doesn't mean they all agree with you. "

 re. Sorry wrote on November 17, 2008 7:55 am:
" That's fine...you can criticize Obama and I will refrain from calling you a racist...and when I and my fellow party members criticize Palin, you don't call us sexist. As far as democratic obstructionism...huh? You definitely see it different than the majority of us. Now as far as making fun of Bush....there was sooooo much to work with! "

 JB wrote on November 17, 2008 9:40 am:
" GW Bush acted like he had a "mandate" even though he had to win the election in the courts. How many electoral votes did Obama get? 365! That is a lot of votes. "

 Nina wrote on November 17, 2008 9:59 am:
" Obama has the strongest work ethic and has shown an ability to move forward and accomplish much, as can already be seen from his past record as well as his approach to his upcoming presidency. This is what we need, because we could not continue, literally, with more of the same economic plans the Republicans have been using. It's sink or swim time, and I intend to do all I can to help us swim. Jim, nearly half (or sometimes over half, re popular vote) always disagree on any election. But I feel the best thing we can do is to work together with what we have, as long as our president is sincere, intelligent, and honest, putting forth great effort to do right. I did this with every Republican president, until GWB, whom I felt, after a fair chance, did not meet the criteria of being intelligent, honest and putting forth great effort. When we, sometime in the future I'm sure, eventually get another Republican president, I'll plan to make the best of it again. This holds true on both sides of the fence for caring Americans. "

 Ignignokt wrote on November 17, 2008 10:12 am:
" Well, Obama promised change, and has already delivered! Why, just look at the change in opinion from the Democrats. In 2000, the electoral college was flawed and needed to be tossed out...but in 2008, it's the greatest system in the world because it makes their victory look larger than it actually was. That truly is 'change we can believe in'. "

 DR wrote on November 17, 2008 11:27 am:
" Obama (I'll take on the Democratic style of referring to President Bush) sold this country a bill of goods by seling the intangible "change" and "yes, we can". Each voter now has their very own vision of what change means and what "yes, we can" means and Obama has zero chance of satisfying the majority of those who voted for him. Congress, being an independant brach of government, will not give the new leader of the administrative branch a blank check. They stupidly follow us into war with a seemingly blank check and it won't happen again I'll bet. I was sick of President Bush and I am ready for change but fiscally shifting left from a man that already conned the congress in excessive spending is no solution. The Republicans will take the Presidency again someday when they nominate a real Republican Fiscally Conservative man or women regardless the color of skin. Fiscally speaking President Bush was a republican disaster and the dirt rubbed off on Senator McCain. For the first time since 1972 I left my Democratic ballot blank in the spring and my General Election ballot blank this fall. What a pathetic choice of candidates who stepped forward. "

 Hey Liberals wrote on November 17, 2008 11:57 am:
" Next time, quit voting on emotion. It won't be long until you have voters remorse. You'll become reactionary then, and people that aren't hypnotised by Obama will say, "Told you so!" Think before you vote, and quit the "He makes me feel warm and fuzzy" bit. "

 Alan wrote on November 17, 2008 1:06 pm:
" I'm not happy Obama won but I am happy he won by a large margin and that he has majorities in both houses. That way the Democrats will own the results no matter if it's positive or negative. If the country is better off in 4 years he will deserve another term. If not he will deserve to be replaced. "

 hey conservatives wrote on November 17, 2008 1:11 pm:
" Quit voting on a single issue...abortion. Become an educated voter and consider other issues when pulling the lever. "

 Alan wrote on November 17, 2008 2:44 pm:
" Hey $70 per hour read the article at chicagotribune.com that the following was exerted from.

The base UAW wage is $28 an hour, but GM says benefits for active andretired workers push the labor cost to $73.26. The Center for Automotiveresearch says Toyota pays its non-union U.S. workers $45 an hour, including benefits.

When you consider this applies to the guy that mows the lawn and to the job bankers who do nothing it's clear why GM is in trouble. "

 Jim...but not that Jim wrote on November 17, 2008 9:35 pm:
" I feel bad for Jim in Seward. Obama won and won big. I voted for Obama. This Jim is just as American as you, Jim. I believe the Bush administration’s lies about war where our men and women died for nothing, along with McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as VP is what sealed the deal for me. Was I hesitant to vote for a bi-racial man to be our next president? Yes, somewhat. But I realize that what George Bush has done to our country...killing thousands and thousands of innocents, and thousands of our brave American troops, when Bin Laden still runs free, is not what I want in a president. And to continue it with John McCain and Sarah (disbelief) Palin? Sorry Jim. I rose above the racism in this campaign and proudly voted for a man that will turn our standing in the world around in a much better way. I am white. And I am proud to have voted for Barack Obama! "

 Ken wrote on November 18, 2008 5:33 am:
" Would you people get off the Bush didn't win the 2000 election, except by a Supreme Court decision. Those votes were counted four times and Bush won. If it was up to you we would still be recounting those votes and without a President forever, including Obama. "

 Kelly wrote on November 21, 2008 6:10 pm:
" pk wrote on November 16, 2008 8:05 am:
" I agree with Jim from Seward. Barack Obama is not the man who will lead the US to victory in Iran and on the Russian Front. Mr. Obama just doesn't have what it takes to reduce taxes even more on the CEO's whose clutch policy decisions day in and out result in our stable economy. Mr. Obama just won't institute the draft which is necessary to keep America the #1 most awesome shock and awe force in the world. He's just too eggheady to involve us in the necessary battles it takes to show the world that we are #1. "

Funny, I hadn't realized we were at war with Iran and Russia. Where have I been?

PS Your post is disgusting. "

Ads by Yahoo!