Hello:

I don't know. There's an 800 lb gorilla in the room. Is it better that we DON'T talk about it? Should we just forget about the last 8 years and the lessons it brings?? Are there any lessons??

I think there are. If we ignore them, we're destined to relive them..

The 800 pound gorilla is that the dufus really WAS a puppet. And, like Pinocchio before, he thought he was real... The danger is that a leaderless ship can find itself on the rocks...

That's where we are. You know I think so... But, here's what neo-con Richard Perle wrote in an article this week in The National Interest. You remember him. He's one of the guys who got us into Iraq.

"Bush was undercut on the most crucial foreign policy issues he faced by the State Department and the CIA, which either ignored his policies or openly sought to discredit them."

As Perle described Bush's presidency, "For eight years George W. Bush pulled the levers of government - sometimes frantically - never realizing that they were disconnected from the machinery and the exertion was largely futile."

Hail, hail, the dufus is gone.

excon

I don't understad why you see this as a second coming ?

Aren't your expectations to big ?

i dont understad why you see this as a second coming ?
I reread his post and saw nothing that referred to that. Perhaps you could quote the text I missed?

Perle is right of course . I have been talking for years about the careerists in State and CIA undermining policy.

Best read on this is 'Shadow Warriors' by Ken Timmerman .

If there is commity and unity of action with the new administration and the new POTUS it will not be because of his leadership .Rather it will be because the careerist and the POTUS have the same policy agenda. When they differ ,Obama's agenda will be undermined also with leaks to the Slimes and internal sabotage .

You should not be thrilled about it . The way I read it ,the careerists in State are Arabists and would silently rejoice if Israel disappeared .

I asked about expectatons from obama . Isn't that a topic ? Or I didn't understan it .

arent your expectations to big ?Hello again, r:

I don't have expectations. I'm too cynical for that. But, I DO have hopes. Are they too big? Sure.

excon

I think that all this obamamania that spread around the world is just another...

I also hope that obama will be a good presidant for americans . Usually when something is to-good-to-be-trouth its not .

You should not be thrilled about it . The way I read it ,the careerists in State are Arabists and would silently rejoice if Israel disappeared .Hello tom:

I'm not, of course. Rice wanted to vote in favor of UN Security Council Resolution 1860 which called for an immediate ceasefire between IDF forces and Hamas terrorists - a CLEAR anti-Israel stance...

I just wonder if that isn't because the dufus never held anyone accountable. Or, are we just stuck with career bureaucrats running the show? Scary thought, huh?

excon

I'm not thrilled about it either . Rice started being a reformer at State but she could not crack the bureaucratic quicksand. She has not perfomed there as well as she did as National Security Adviser.

Bush is not completely without fault in this of course. He could've as an example not allowed the State Dept change his original post war plan for Iraq. It should've been clear early on the Viceroy Bremer was single-handedly changing postwar Iraq from liberation to occupation.

Bush trying to reform the CIA appointed Porter Goss.But his term was short and he left under suspicious reasons which looked very much like he was pushed out. From all accounts, Goss had managed in a short time to make himself thoroughly disliked by the rank and file of the CIA.

And as you are aware ,the CIA ran a sting operation on VP Cheney's office . But there is much more .

By the way ;give Rice some slack on that UN vote. She was working with Livni on a US agreement to interdict weapons being smuggled into Gaza . Israel imposed a unilateral ceasefire on itself shortly after both the UN vote and the announcement of the agreement. I hope that Obama signed onto it.

Breathe a sigh of reliefandchange, ex... it's done (http://www.whitehouse.gov/).

Breathe a sigh of reliefandchange, ex...it's done (http://www.whitehouse.gov/).

OK... let's try and evalute President Obama on his actions starting tomorrow rather than parrotting the Shock Talk Radio right wing predictions of a communist revolution.

So let's all hold hands at least for today and raise our voices in unison and sing a stirring rendition of "Kumbaya" :D

OK...let's try and evalute President Obama on his actions starting tomorrow rather than parrotting the Shock Talk Radio right wing predictions of a communist revolution.

So let's all hold hands at least for today and raise our voices in unison and sing a stirring rendition of "Kumbaya" :D

Tex, that's all fine and well but I'm really quite unsure why you would speak of "parrotting the Shock Talk Radio right wing predictions of a communist revolution" in relation to what I posted.

Tex, that's all fine and well but I'm really quite unsure why you would speak of "parrotting the Shock Talk Radio right wing predictions of a communist revolution" in relation to what I posted.

It was not directed at you speech, it was more of a general statement to those who lean right on these threads. I shouldn't have quoted you in my post, I should have just posted without a quote. Sorry.

It was not directed at you speech, it was more of a general statement to those who lean right on these threads. I shouldn't have quoted you in my post, I should have just posted without a quote. Sorry.

No problem :)

OK, I'm all Kumbaya'd out today. Man that Rick Warren is sure controversial, eh? But how about that benediction by Rev. Joseph Lowery?


in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around... when yellow will be mellow... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right.

Um, welcome to the post-racial age in America.

Not to be outdone by that thought provoking inaugural poem...


Praise song for the day.

Each day we go about our business, walking past each other, catching each others' eyes or not, about to speak or speaking. All about us is noise. All about us is noise and bramble, thorn and din, each one of our ancestors on our tongues. Someone is stitching up a hem, darning a hole in a uniform, patching a tire, repairing the things in need of repair.

Someone is trying to make music somewhere with a pair of wooden spoons on an oil drum with cello, boom box, harmonica, voice.

A woman and her son wait for the bus.

A farmer considers the changing sky; A teacher says, "Take out your pencils. Begin."

We encounter each other in words, words spiny or smooth, whispered or declaimed; words to consider, reconsider.

We cross dirt roads and highways that mark the will of someone and then others who said, "I need to see what's on the other side; I know there's something better down the road."

We need to find a place where we are safe; We walk into that which we cannot yet see.

Say it plain, that many have died for this day. Sing the names of the dead who brought us here, who laid the train tracks, raised the bridges, picked the cotton and the lettuce, built brick by brick the glittering edifices they would then keep clean and work inside of.

Praise song for struggle; praise song for the day. Praise song for every hand-lettered sign; The figuring it out at kitchen tables.

Some live by "Love thy neighbor as thy self."

Others by first do no harm, or take no more than you need.

What if the mightiest word is love, love beyond marital, filial, national. Love that casts a widening pool of light. Love with no need to preempt grievance.

In today's sharp sparkle, this winter air, anything can be made, any sentence begun.

On the brink, on the brim, on the cusp -- praise song for walking forward in that light.

Wow, I'm so moved...

OMG... that's the second time I fell asleep to that poem today, the first time one TV and the second reading it here.

I don't even like Rap; but if someone could put a beat to it I might be able to stomach it.

That and the instrumental... at pretty as it was, it sounded at times more appropriate for a funeral. The only entertainment was the "Yo Yo" guy on the Celo, he thought he was belting it out like it was a rock concert, I liked his enthusiasm.

Other than that, snorefest.

Oh... and President Obama needs to smile a little more. Far too serious and he looked nervous before coming out. I am sure it's planned that he can't look too happy in these serious times.

Policy aside; I liked George Bush personally, he almost always had a smile on his face and had a sense of humor which I liked. Perhaps it takes a while on the job for the President to feel comfortable, I don't remember if George was stiffer in the beginning. Almost all outgoing President's look more comfortable than the incoming one, I guess in part because they ARE happy they get to relax finally and I suppose because we are so used to seeing them.

Hi excon-

Not much time before my mother (the babysitter) brings my kid back home so I'll make this brief. To pick up on your topic I watched a good portion of the inauguration today. I agree that generally speaking, nationally (perhaps globally), there was sense of relief that a Bush clan led White House has finally ended. Of course, you and I know that realistically the effects of Dumbya will unfortunately linger on for years.

Barack's speech was poignantly correct. However, the thing that struck me foremost was that for the first time this historical moment was larger than Barack, as a politician, or his orator skills. Seeing elderly African Americans in tears, thinking they would had never had experienced this in their lifetime was wonderful insight to the progress of the United States... the country I love.

Shock Talk Radio right wing predictions

Tuned into air America yesterday and got an ear full from the free giverment cheese crowd complaining about all of President Obama's talk of personal responsibility .

tuned into air America yesterday and got an ear full from the free giverment cheese crowd complaining about all of President Obama's talk of personal responsibility .That's weird it's actually quite the opposite:
A New Era of Responsibility | Air America Media (http://airamerica.com/blog/2009/jan/20/new-era-responsibility)

Responsibility is not a dirty word. It is not Republican code.

Meanwhile Rush Limbaugh is saying:
Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html)

I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: "Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails." Somebody's gotta say it.

I was talking about the callers.(nice comments on your link about VP Cheney's injury )

The editors of Air head should heed to words of the new President
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

Also idiots like Tom Brokejaw of the discredited NBC network ;who compared Obama's inauguration to the Velvet Revolution in the Czech Republic that overthrew a dictatorial Communist regime;should heed President Obama's words .

And how about that Chris "thrill up my leg" Matthews?


OLBERMANN: Well, as we noticed, and again, we all walked through this crowd to some degree. I don't know how many good mornings were said today.

MATTHEWS: Well, it sure as hell helps to be on MSNBC --

OLBERMANN: Well, all right --

MATTHEWS: Let's talk straight here --

OLBERMANN: All right.

MATTHEWS: This is the network that has opened its heart to change -- to change and its possibilities. Let's be honest about it. These -- these people watch this network out here.

OLBERMANN: Well, I'm -- also was going to say, not just to us. You heard other people say hello to each other. People didn't know each other, who are here for one single purpose. And were thus already introduced to each other --

MATTHEWS: This is the network of the 21st Century -- MSNBC, and I think we're open to it and that's why this crowd knows us and I think --

OLBERMANN: He's Chris Matthews and he approved that message.

MATTHEWS: We're not crotchety about change -- stuffy.

An amazing thing . People in a crowd saying hello to each other!!

Now that's a pivotal change from the past!!

an amazing thing . People in a crowd saying hello to each other !!!

Now that's a pivotal change from the past !!!

LOL, I live in an area where people still give a wave, a nod, a hello to strangers... where men still open a door for the ladies and get a sincere thank you in return. Is that coming to a neighborhood near you soon?

In the real America "red "and "blue "(the America not inhabitted by myopic loons like Matthews and Olberman) I find people to be generally cordial... even in New York. My community ;just a short drive from NYC ; resembles Mayberry RFD as much as the small towns I lived in Kansas.

Also idiots like Tom Brokejaw of the discredited NBC network Hello tom:

Discredited by who? Fox? O'Reilly? Hannity? Well, there you go.

Bwa, ha ha ha.

excon

in the real America "red "and "blue "(the America not inhabitted by myopic loons like Matthews and Olberman) I find people to be generally cordial ...even in New York. My community ;just a short drive from NYC ; resembles Mayberry RFD as much as the small towns I lived in Kansas.

Exactly.

I get it, it doesn't matter if "Fox? O'Reilly? Hannity?" are right.

Hello again, Steve:

It would matter IF they were right, but they're not...

In fact, your Fox Dudes wallow in the same slime that NBC does. They're ALL apologists for the status quo, instead of being actual reporters. In fact, NBC made their CHIEF apologist the moderator of Meet the Press.

Bush could NOT have gotten away with what he did WITHOUT a compliant press corp.

excon

Ex, they're all worthless in many respects - but I have to laugh at the thought of NBC being part of a compliant press corps for Bush, and David Gregory (http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2008/12/09/essay-david-gregory-liberal-enough) being the chief apologist.

I have a outside perspective growing up in Canada with regard to American television media.

Most Canadian's can't believe how dumbed down media reporting and commentary is here.

Like the post above which quotes the comment by Obermann "You heard other people say hello to each other". Is an example of how the American people are talked to. It's like they are still on the farm in Iowa, uneducated and have just bought their first television.

Why is it that the American media seems to talk at a Grade 6 level?

What is it about the major networks who make a big deal about the simple kindness that exists in the real world all the time?

I doubt any of you have seen Canadian news broadcasts, but I would say they are more like the BBC which tend to be a little deeper, and the audience is talked to like they at least have a high school education.

I know most of you right leaners don't like MSNBC, but in my experience this type of nonsense is true of all the major networks.

My question is why? Why do the media talk to American's like they are simple folk?

Canadian's at least and I'm sure many other countries see America through the eyes of your media, is there any wonder why the average American is viewed as none too bright?

I can tell you from personal experience from talking to many American's from all different states that they are anything but simple; quite the opposite really. So why does the media continue to 'talk' to American's in this way?

I have to laugh at the thought of NBC being part of a compliant press corps for Bush, and David Gregory being the chief apologist.Hello again, Steve:

From his own mouth as Gregory himself put it during his dismissal of leftist ideologue Scott McClellan's complaints that the press was overly deferential to Bush:

"I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not stand up and say this is bogus, and you're a liar, and why are you doing this, that we didn't do our job. I respectfully disagree. It's not our role.".

I disagree, and NOT respectfully either. In fact, that IS their role. Investigatory questions are NOT confrontational, as Gregory seems to think.

Here's a little more:

Steven Colbert nailed it when he interviewed Gregory: "Are you proud of the questions the press asked of the administration? Because I'm proud of the questions you didn't ask."

Gregory: "I do think the right questions were asked, and I think people view our job through their own ideological prism, and they've made some judgments along those lines."

In other words, only a leftist ideologue such as ME thinks that the press should actually report when government statements are false and baseless.

excon

I don’t know where I must have been the past 8 years because I certainly haven’t been privy to the same media coverage of Bush that you have. Was there a time when the media was deferential to Bush? Probably to an extent in the aftermath of 9/11, but I certainly haven’t seen anything like that for the majority of his administration. He was kicked around before he took office, jeered on the way out and took a phenomenal number of blows in between. Did you miss that?

I’m often tempted to cancel my newspaper because I’m sick of being told how I should interpret the ‘news.’ That’s where the mainstream media has lost its way, it doesn’t report, it manipulates (which I believe explains much of what TexasParent questions). Gregory was just ticked off at the idea that HE got manipulated because he thinks that’s the job of the press.

Did you miss that? Did you miss "lowest approval rating"? :)

Did you miss "lowest approval rating"? :)

Sometimes you actually swerve into the point. How could I miss it? The media repeated it a gazillion times. There are 15,405 hits Google News hits at this moment for Bush approval rating (http://news.google.com/news?oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&tab=wn&nolr=1&hl=en&q=Bush+approval+rating&btnG=Search+News) and 423,000 for a web search.

That many people can't be wrong! I guess the media was indeed reporting the news correctly.

That many people can't be wrong! I guess the media was indeed reporting the news correctly.

And like so many you fail to question what impact 8 years of extremely negative reporting has on the public.

Well you enter into a cause and effect debate: is it the negative reporting that fueled the approval rating or is it the actual actions/decisions of the president that fueled the approval rating?

Well you enter into a cause and effect debate: is it the negative reporting that fueled the approval rating or is it the actual actions/decisions of the president that fueled the approval rating?

I have no doubt that it was some of both, I just don't discount the effect on the public of a constant pummeling of someone in the media.

So ex, are you expecting the same standard toward Obama as you expected for Bush? Something similar to what Juan Williams expects (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123249791178500439.html)?


If his presidency is to represent the full power of the idea that black Americans are just like everyone else -- fully human and fully capable of intellect, courage and patriotism -- then Barack Obama has to be subject to the same rough and tumble of political criticism experienced by his predecessors. To treat the first black president as if he is a fragile flower is certain to hobble him. It is also to waste a tremendous opportunity for improving race relations by doing away with stereotypes and seeing the potential in all Americans.

Yet there is fear, especially among black people, that criticism of him or any of his failures might be twisted into evidence that people of color cannot effectively lead. That amounts to wasting time and energy reacting to hateful stereotypes. It also leads to treating all criticism of Mr. Obama, whether legitimate, wrong-headed or even mean-spirited, as racist.

This is patronizing. Worse, it carries an implicit presumption of inferiority. Every American president must be held to the highest standard. No president of any color should be given a free pass for screw-ups, lies or failure to keep a promise.

During the Democrats' primaries and caucuses, candidate Obama often got affectionate if not fawning treatment from the American media. Editors, news anchors, columnists and commentators, both white and black but especially those on the political left, too often acted as if they were in a hurry to claim their role in history as supporters of the first black president.

For example, Mr. Obama was forced to give a speech on race as a result of revelations that he'd long attended a church led by a demagogue. It was an ordinary speech. At best it was successful at minimizing a political problem. Yet some in the media equated it to the Gettysburg Address.

The importance of a proud, adversarial press speaking truth about a powerful politician and offering impartial accounts of his actions was frequently and embarrassingly lost. When Mr. Obama's opponents, such as the Clintons, challenged his lack of experience, or pointed out that he was not in the U.S. Senate when he expressed early opposition to the war in Iraq, they were depicted as petty.

Bill Clinton got hit hard when he called Mr. Obama's claims to be a long-standing opponent of the Iraq war "the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen." The former president accurately said that there was no difference in actual Senate votes on the war between his wife and Mr. Obama. But his comments were not treated by the press as legitimate, hard-ball political fighting. They were cast as possibly racist.

This led to Saturday Night Live's mocking skit -- where the debate moderator was busy hammering the other Democratic nominees with tough questions while inquiring if Mr. Obama was comfortable and needed more water.

When fellow Democrats contending for the nomination rightly pointed to Mr. Obama's thin proposals for dealing with terrorism and extricating the U.S. from Iraq, they were drowned out by loud if often vacuous shouts for change. Yet in the general election campaign and during the transition period, Mr. Obama steadily moved to his former opponents' positions. In fact, he approached Bush-Cheney stands on immunity for telecommunications companies that cooperate in warrantless surveillance.

There is a dangerous trap being set here. The same media people invested in boosting a black man to the White House as a matter of history have set very high expectations for him. When he disappoints, as presidents and other human beings inevitably do, the backlash may be extreme.

Several seasons ago, when Philadelphia Eagle's black quarterback Donovan McNabb was struggling, radio commentator Rush Limbaugh said the media wanted a black quarterback to do well and gave Mr. McNabb "a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve." Mr. Limbaugh's sin was saying out loud what others had said privately.

There is a lot more at stake now, and to allow criticism of Mr. Obama only behind closed doors does no honor to the dreams and prayers of generations past: that race be put aside, and all people be judged honestly, openly, and on the basis of their performance.

President Obama deserves no less.

I plan on doing my part :)

Although I have become an Obama supporter, I originally was supporting Hillary. Honestly, I wouldn't have supported anyone on the Republican ticket due to my perception of the Bush Presidency.

Having said that, I agree with the article Speech posted. President Obama got a free pass on a lot of things. Ask yourself, would a young white man with his prior experience beat Hillary in the Primary? The answer is a resounding no.

I think now that Barack Obama is now President, I think he will be a good one; but make no mistake, he wasn't held to the same standard as a white man would have been during his campaigns.

As the article and 'speech' have said, the American people deserve no less than the same honest critique of his Presidential decisions as all previous Presidents have received.

Now that he's elected, he's no longer black or white; he's the President of the United States and is accountable to the people he serves.

Well put, Tex.

Here, straight from the horse's mouth Helen Thomas, is what's wrong with the media. From an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation:


Helen Thomas: I'm a liberal, I was born a liberal, I'll be one 'til I die, what else should a reporter be when you see so much and when we have such great privilege and access to the truth?

CBC Interviewer: Well, you know, it's interesting because I'm sure that if somebody from the right was sitting here they would say... if you ask the question what should a reporter be they will say, "Oh, I don't know, How about objective?"

Helen Thomas: You're not asking people not to think not to care are you? But you are asking them to give a fair reporting both sides and so forth and I did it for 57 years I was never, never accused of bias in my copy. But I had a right to be angry and unhappy at the trend that I saw in my country that I was close enough to see.

At least it was a refreshing moment of candor. "What else should a reporter be" but a liberal... whether "born" that way or because of "when you see so much," she can't seem to make up her mind which.

One can't be anything but a liberal when privy to the "truth," and only some uncaring, unthinking conservative would dare think a reporter should perhaps be - objective. How antiquated an idea that surely must be. And not only must one be a liberal to be a reporter, they must be in total denial (or complete ignorance?) of their bias.

Well put, Tex.

Here, straight from the horse's mouth Helen Thomas, is what's wrong with the media. From an interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation:



At least it was a refreshing moment of candor. "What else should a reporter be" but a liberal...whether "born" that way or because of "when you see so much," she can't seem to make up her mind which.

One can't be anything but a liberal when privy to the "truth," and only some uncaring, unthinking conservative would dare think a reporter should perhaps be - objective. How antiquated an idea that surely must be. And not only must one be a liberal to be a reporter, they must be in total denial (or complete ignorance?) of their bias.

What's interesting is the CBC interviewer who asked the question belongs to Canada's only publicly subsidized national television broadcasting corporation which has long been accused of having a liberal bias because it was in their best interest to slant their reporting to favor liberal notions and 'Liberal Party' national governments who historically have supported the CBC whereas the Conservative Party has long called for and end to public subsidization.

Even with the liberal bias of the CBC, I've always found that as a matter of course the CBC try and present both or many sides of the story. That is what I found most disturbing after coming to the US, the media here seem to only truly present one side of a story even if they pretend to insert a balanced comment from the other side. I can't stand the news media down here, it's very partisan and shallow.

Yes, there are very liberal reporters in Canada (what would you expect, liberal governments and Canada's sacred social programs make most Canadian's liberal at heart); but there are some very objective reporters too, more so from what I remember than appear in the US media.

It's like they are still on the farm in Iowa, uneducated and have just bought their first television.

Why is it that the American media seems to talk at a Grade 6 level?

HMMM...

Guess my experience is different.

From Iowa.

Farmland country.

We've had boobtubes for longer than the latest sale, even color sets. *gasp* guess I even have connections to the internet. Even use The Google, as our former Texan in Chief stated.

Please don't assume that the midwest farmer is an ignorant, uneducated person.

Really. Really??

Do you think the mess this country is in came from the man who worked the fields?? Really??

HMMM....

guess my experience is different.

from iowa.

farmland country.

we've had boobtubes for longer than the latest sale, even color sets. *gasp* guess i even have connections to the internet. even use The Google, as our former Texan in Chief stated.

please dont assume that the midwest farmer is an ignorant, uneducated person.

really. really???

do you think the mess this country is in came from the man who worked the fields??? really???

I really should have said 'ignorant, uneducated person' rather than pulling a state out of my butt which I know nothing about. Please accept and extend my apologies to all the people of Iowa.

So Iowa resides in your arse? ;)

There are idiots everywhere. I'm a charter member of the fidiots. Just ask my wife.

Ask yourself, would a young white man with his prior experience beat Hillary in the Primary? The answer is a resounding no.
Hello again,

I HAVE asked myself that question. My answer is, that every time he won, every primary; every caucus, and finally the general election, it was because he was the better candidate with the better organized campaign.

IF black people voted MORE for him, is it because he's black, or because he's better organized? Black people LOVED Hillary, but Obama got their vote.

There are lots of conclusions that can be drawn from his election... The racist angle is only one.

excon

Yes race was but one angle that possibly got his foot in the door .Remeber ;he was a backbencher in Illinois Senate ;and Kerry picked him to give the keynote address in 2004 . From there he propelled to where he is today. His rise had nothing to do with his race.

I went to SanDiego last summer and watched his organization at work on the streets and concluded then that he would win . Any chance that McCain had of winning (and it was close for a few weeks ) was dashed by the Sept. economic crisis .

First I need to put a disclaimer... I am in no way racist and am happy that the black population is excited about Obama's election and I feel for that reason alone they have something to be happy about.

However if you look at Obama's qualifications, his inconsistencies and his policies and compare them to the constitution you will have to agree he is no better than Bush... Obama has already made it clear he will appoint biased judges:

Quote from Obama:
"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old--and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."

NO, we don't appoint judges who are biased to feelings, we appoint judges who will judge based on the constitution and laws that our country was founded on. Anyone who would insinuate such nonesense should be autimaticly disqualified for president in the eyes of the American people...

You want a president who is biased? Maybe if your gay, african american, old or a young mother who wants an abortion it sounds good but its not ethical and its not right. No matter if they are biased towards my views or yours it is still wrong, we need judges unbiased by feelings and even public opinion... they should be biased to the constitution alone...

Obama has also the theory that the constitution is ammendable to the times we live... it is not, it is a code we live by. When we change it we will lose freedoms...

If you study what Obama has said and written you will realize he is pushing for a socialist government...

In that light Obama was the wrong man... and I feel sorry that America would let such a man in based largely on the fact of his color. I am not saying you voted wrong if you voted for Obama because of his color but as far as I am concerned many of us should have looked deeper under the covers...

Hello 1st:

I agree with your sentiments... Our Supreme Court Justices should be FREE from any political leanings... But, that just isn't how it happens.

If you're suggesting that Bush appointed such judges, then YOUR political leanings are showing. His selections mirror Republican beliefs. They support the 2nd Amendment, but consistently weaken the 1st, the 4th, the 5th, the 6th, the 10th, the 11th, and the 14th. Interestingly, those are the very Amendments that Republicans don't like either.

Fortunately, Obama is going to have the opportunity to appoint at least three and maybe four Supreme Court Justices. Too bad that they're going to support the very Amendments that the Bush judges don't.

Your beliefs were debated LOUDLY during the campaign, and America has spoken. Your beliefs have been soundly REJECTED by the American populace. We are going in a NEW direction. MOST of America is HAPPY with the direction we're now going.

There are, of course, going to be a few who don't like it. To them, I say - GET USED TO IT!

excon