Start A Petition

Hey GOP, Take the Palin Cure

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: americans, u.s., usa, republicans, politics, elections, government )

- 2134 days ago -
I've got a suggestion for cutting short the GOP angst: Sarah Palin for president in 2016.


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Cam V (417)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 3:57 pm

The Republican Party has been doing a lot of hand-wringing and finger-pointing since the presidential election. Half the conservative columnists and bloggers say the GOP lost because it overemphasized social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. The other half says the party didn't emphasize them enough. And everyone denounces Project ORCA, the campaign's attempt to turn out voters via technology.

But I've got a suggestion for cutting short the GOP angst: Sarah Palin for president in 2016.

You think I'm joking? Think again.

PHOTOS: 2016 presidential possibilities

In 2008, Palin, running as my party's vice presidential candidate, was widely supposed to have cost John McCain the election. But that wasn't so. A national exit poll conducted by CNN asked voters whether Palin was a factor in their voting. Of those who said yes, 56% voted for McCain versus 43% for Barack Obama.

Furthermore, Mitt Romney, the GOP's anointed contender this year, got almost a million fewer votes than McCain did in 2008. (Meanwhile, President Obama, although winning reelection, lost far more voters than the Republicans, with nearly 7 million fewer voters checking his name on their ballots than did in 2008).

Millions of Americans didn't much care for Obama and his Obamacare spending blowout, but they didn't feel like voting for Romney either. Some said that Romney didn't resonate with recession-hit blue-collar folks in swing states because he "looked like the boss who outsourced their jobs," as one blog commenter quipped.

Gabriel Malor, writing for the New York Daily News' blog, pinpointed another reason: By focusing his campaign mostly on serious economic and political issues such as the national debt and tax incentives, Romney failed to take into account the fact that large segments of the electorate neither know nor care much about serious economic and political issues. What they — a group sometimes euphemistically called "uninformed voters" — do know and care about are the tugs on their emotions, fears, revulsions and heart strings provided by hours and hours of uninterrupted television watching .

The Democrats understood how to reach that constituency. When a barrage of Obama campaign TV ads told them that the GOP wanted to take away their contraceptives or that Bain Capital killed someone's wife, they took notice. When Obama strolled the hurricane-stricken beaches of New Jersey in his bomber jacket, they were snowed. As Malor put it, Obama won on "binders, Big Bird, birth control and blame Bush."

Palin can more than keep up with the Democrats in appealing to voters' emotions. Hardly anyone could be more blue collar than Palin, out on the fishing boat with her hunky blue-collar husband, Todd. Palin is "View"-ready, she's "Ellen"-ready, she's Kelly-and-Michael-ready.

A Palin "war against women"? Hah! Not only is she a woman, she's got a single-mom daughter, Bristol, to help with the swelling single-mom demographic. On social issues, Palin, unlike Romney, has been absolutely consistent. And let's remember that most Americans, whatever their view of choice, disapprove of most abortions.

Gay marriage? Palin opposes it. But she is also a strong advocate of states' rights, and I'm betting she'd be fine with letting states and their voters grapple with the issue on their own. Remember that all of America didn't swing toward approval of gay marriage on Nov. 6. Three reliably blue states and their voters did. If she were smart, Palin would recruit a member of her impressive gay fanboy base — yes, she has one — to help run her campaign. I nominate Kevin DuJan of the widely read gay conservative blog HillBuzz, a Palin stalwart since 2008.

Palin's son Track is an Iraq war veteran, so she can be proudly patriotic without being labeled another George W. Bush, looking to do aggressive nation-building. She seems aware there is only one nation in need of building right now: America.

Furthermore, looks count in politics, and Palin at age 48, has it all over her possible competition, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, who will be 69 by election day 2016 and who let someone talk her into adopting the flowing blond locks of a college student, making her look like Brunnhilde in a small-town Wagner production. Men love Sarah Palin, and she loves men.

She's tough as nails too. After Election 2008, she was supposed to have been through. This year eight of the 14 GOP candidates Palin endorsed for Congress won election or reelection, including tea party favorite Ted Cruz for a Senate seat in Texas.

Sure, there is going to be never-ending nastiness from the left, but she's already lived through that once. Katie Couric? A has-been. Tina Fey? Her shtick was already wearing thin in 2008.

There are also the snooty East Coast Republican intellectual types, such as Peggy Noonan, who look down their noses at a woman who doesn't shop at Neiman Marcus and didn't attend an Ivy League university. But Peggy made a fool of herself calling the election for Romney on Nov. 5. Who's going to care what she and her ilk have to say next time?

Some Republicans will say Palin has too much baggage from 2008, and we need to look for a new Sarah Palin. But I don't see what's wrong with the one we've got. Ever since the 1990s, Republicans have been looking for the next Ronald Reagan. Reagan is now revered in bipartisan circles, but during his presidency he was, like Palin, ridiculed by liberals. They cited "Bedtime for Bonzo" and sneered at his no-name college degree.

Sarah Palin is the new Ronald Reagan: charming and affable and unwilling to back down if she's right. I can't see what's wrong with that.

Charlotte Allen writes frequently about feminism, politics and religion.

Jae A (316)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 4:10 pm
Wow , you Teabagger Klan folks really do want to lose another election. I find that,and this latest push for her amazingm, after her being the main reason McCain barely came in second in the 2008 election. For those in the GOP and other Rightwing leaning parties who haven't already step as far as they can from the Teabagger Klan/Righwing extremist this should do it for sure, and long before the 2016 election. This is funnier to me than a SLN doubt American as a whole will find it to be my opinion..

Past Member (0)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 4:16 pm
I don't care for Palin, but will admit, Mitt makes her look like a genius.

Cam V (417)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 4:27 pm
She was the reason McCain RECOVERED Jae .... then the market failing hit. Judge people on their records in office from start to finish. Do not judge them on propaganda.

She was an excellent elected official during ALL of her many years of public service in Alaska. Listen to the lies or do your own research of actual records.

I prefer TRUTH to propaganda.

Past Member (0)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 4:48 pm
If she runs Governor Palin has my vote!

Jae A (316)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 5:40 pm
Not Cam..she is the reason just as the Teabaggers were a major playing in Romney defeat...but hey..go with your version as mine as to the outcome I'm will to bet will be the outcome..just as I and others predicted the outcome for Romney and his loss . I think she'll make it a shoe in for anyone else who runs if she does...She toxic when it comes to politics Cam....just the reality of $arah.

David C (29)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 6:30 pm
Cam we talk for a time on here, I told you the outcome this time, I told you that she would not run this time, you told me that she would, people will not forget that she was asking for more money to run right up to the last min.

Cam this party needs to change, need to get away from its past if it does not the outcome will be more years of them being losers.

RR Sutton (7)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 7:59 pm
"Judge people on their records in office from start to finish."

So what you are saying is we shouldn't judge Palin because she never finished office as Governor of Alaska. With that kind of record it would be real important to know who would be her running mate so we would know who would be the person taking over when she quit.

Cam V (417)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 8:35 pm
Why didn't she finish office I wonder RR? Do you even know what forced her to do that or do you care about the propaganda the American media is so good at propagating about good people? Do the research. Really do the research - you might be surprised but the doubters will always be doubters.

David, America need some HONEST country loving politicans to start running for office. Palin is a force in the Conservative movement in America. It is fact.

RR Sutton (7)
Saturday November 17, 2012, 11:06 pm
Right, Palin is a force in the Tea Party like Allen West, but at least West isn't a quitter. Even Ryan was smart enough to run for two jobs at the same time instead of running around the country making big bucks on speaking engagements after Mitt was soundly rejected by voters. Everyone knows why she quit. Being Governor would have taken too much of her time and not allowed her the rack in those big bucks. Hey, I don't blame her, she got rich off all those ignorant Baggers.

Cam V (417)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 12:14 am
Why did she quit RR???? Why????

Past Member (0)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 9:23 am
HA HA HA HA HA...Even the Canadians are super dumbed down!!! Been watching the new sun/fox news, Cam?


Patrice M (84)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 11:29 am
I have to honestly say that I am all for it. Run Palin as your candidate in 2016. Please. PLEASE.

Cam V (417)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 11:36 am
As America is going to be in one hell of a fiscal mess by then Mickey Mouse will be able to beat the Dems.

Linda W (174)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 12:16 pm
Ahhh, Palin and Mickey 2016 ~ another winning combination for teabaggers & their ilk. Thanks Cam

Robert T (62)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 12:25 pm
Thinking that Sarah Palin will be elected president in 2016 has to be the silliest thing I have heard this year. She is such a political lightweight that I cannot imagine the GOP leadership letting this happen.

Debra Van Way (12)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 12:46 pm
Palin? Are you kidding? I wouldn't trust her to run a lemonade stand much less our country. That entire family is a freak show that just won't go away. Silly bimbo thinks she can see Russia from her house. Clearly not the sharpest or brightest but she can certainly run her mouth.

Dori G (0)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 12:59 pm
From the column: "In 2008, Palin, running as my party's vice presidential candidate, was widely supposed to have cost John McCain the election. But that wasn't so. A national exit poll conducted by CNN asked voters whether Palin was a factor in their voting. Of those who said yes, 56% voted for McCain versus 43% for Barack Obama."

I suspect that this statistic has been seriously misinterpreted by the author of the article. Gov. Palin was not a factor in my decision, because I had already decided to vote for then-Sen. Obama. My guess is that of those 56% who say that her selection WAS a factor and they voted for Sen. McCain, they were in large part from the far-right wing who were uneasy with Sen. McCain's supposed liberal/moderate reputation. I think some follow-up questions were needed before this statistic was taken as an endorsement of Gov. Palin's appeal to voters-- particularly as to what percentage of respondents consider themselves liberal, moderate, or conservative.

Sarah Palin's nomination for president would, I believe, put the final death blow to the Republican Party. It's on life support now. The only way it can recover is to come back to the middle, repudiate nuts like Grover Norquist, and stop nominating people from the Tea Party members of the party.

Robert B (60)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 1:16 pm
How sad to think that the some conservatives would think that someone like Palin is their only hope to win and election. Such low standards. A woman who lost McCain the election, left her town in debt, quit her Governorship halfway through to avoid ethics investigations and made up lies about "Death Panels", I think it is time for the GOP to face reality and become reasonable and accept more rational moderates into their party. Their shift to the Teaparty right lost them the election and will CONTINUE to lose them elections. This country needs two parties that can work together and with the current mindset of the GOP, that will not happen. Change has got to come for the GOP.

Dianna M (16)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 1:21 pm
"Take the Palin cure"--what? Palin's been cured? IT'S A MIRACLE!


Past Member (0)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 1:46 pm
Thanks Cam, for proving just how competely out of touch you are.


M B (62)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 2:00 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Jason because you have done so within the last week.
Palin is no cure but disease. What a lot of crap that article is.

Charlene R (79)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 2:04 pm
I think you have a maravelous idea, Cam.
Keep up the promotion of ex-Gov. Palin.
It's the greatest gift you could give to the Democratic Party.
With Ms. Palin as the best you've got, a Libertarian could come in second, behind a Democrat.

When you continually support uninformed, uneducated dimwits, the probability of your return to the White House diminishes, greatly.
The only reason the Tea Party Republican GOP received the number of votes they did, was due to the racism in the U.S.

James E (16)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 3:08 pm
Palin? for President in 2016? Really? Well, it would insure another Democratic win in 2016. Maybe Akin or Mourdock could be her running mate.

James E (16)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 3:13 pm
"Palin Cure",,,, makes her sound like a disease....

jan b (5)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 3:35 pm
Sarah Palin may be just lacking in common sense to know she's being insulting.... But
Mitt never knew he was being insulting. He had all the symptoms of "aspergers." a form of autism. I'm serious !!! For example, a person with A S may engage in a one-sided, long-winded speech about a favorite topic, while misunderstanding or not recognizing the listener's feelings or reactions like the comments about the 47% or the recent GIFTS comment. This social awkwardness has been called " odd". This failure to react appropriately to social interaction may appear as disregard for other people's feelings, and may come across as insensitive. Maybe that's Sarah as well......I'm not as sure about her.

Robert K (31)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 4:10 pm
In 2008 Rachel Maddow was on Air America and about 6 weeks before the party of stupid put her up, Rachel was saying she hoped they would choose her. Hardly anyone else in America had ever heard of her at the time. Gotta love Rachel, she's the best prepared host of any radio or TV political show.

Robert K (31)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 4:14 pm
Holy crap!!!!!! I didn't realize this was a serious idea. Just assumed it was sarcasm and posted my other post, then went to read the original. Once again Cam shows his lack of, well, anything worthwhile politically. Please God, make her your candidate. Even Gerrymandering and election fraud wouldn't save you from a historical nosedive.

Robert K (31)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 4:23 pm
Cam, Palin is anything BUT honest. She bankrupted Wassila with her vapid sports arena, mismanaged Alaska, but couldn't bankrupt it because of the oil income, and insiders confirmed that her husband made all the important decisions. And as far as intelligence, she took 7 years to complete a snap major noted for every class being an easy A. She's as dumb as a stump, and if she looked like your average housewife nobody would have any idea who she was, let alone vote for her. Every statement out of her mouth is a marvel in either mendacity or ignorance. So, from your lips to God's ear, PLEASE, Palin for president, please!

Jae A (316)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 6:22 pm
Well from where I sit this evening it looks like the popular opinion did a right on Smack Down of lazy clueless Palin on this thread , so I am guessin it would be an even worse one ,on a nation stage. Personally I am happy that the Teabaggers haven't learned a gosh darn thang from their ever so many mistakes of the past. Their retreat, as anything other than more of the same ol insanitea ,at this time from the mainstream political stage is most welcomed by the rest of us...and rightfully so....IMO. As I said, I wish she would run as that would assure everyone that the GOP/Republican/Neocons would lose hands down,belly up, heads in the sand...........etc.


Jae A (316)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 6:28 pm
First she'll have to find funds for that bus to nowhere she likes to tour around in..or was that property of the RNC......Fact is, she is a has been who never really was anything but a liability for the GOP.

Tom Edgar (56)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 6:38 pm
I'd love to think this article was written ironically but seeing that too many Americans, and I think all Republicans neither know or understand irony I must conclude this is a Democrat who would really love to see this brainless nonentity as the G O P candidate.

Lloyd H (46)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 8:42 pm

Mary Donnelly (47)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 9:07 pm
Thanks for a fascinating post Cam, and the comments. I hope they were intended to be humorous.

reft h (66)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 9:37 pm

Past Member (0)
Sunday November 18, 2012, 10:14 pm
Oh! Has Cam embarrassed himself enough to abandon his brilliant thread? lol, palin.

Consuelo H. (0)
Monday November 19, 2012, 6:52 am
cam you need to go back under your rock. you need to see "Game Change" and realize that palin is nothing more than a backwoods grifter. if you didn't realize how stupid she is then I guess you are as stupid and ignorant. please get off this site. this site is for intellectual thought and understanding. not teabagger stupidity.

Jim Kilby (0)
Monday November 19, 2012, 7:58 am
Being Governor of Alaska is like being class president in a large school. McCain's pitch during his 2008 run was that he had "been tested." Choosing Palin was a test he flunked. If the GOP hopes to win the presidency they should run someone who has something on the ball.

Nancy M (168)
Monday November 19, 2012, 9:13 am
Cam, honestly. Palin as had more than her 15 minutes. Ain't gonna happen.

Nancy M (168)
Monday November 19, 2012, 9:16 am
"A Palin "war against women"? Hah! Not only is she a woman, she's got a single-mom daughter, Bristol, to help with the swelling single-mom demographic."

And just why did her daughter end up as a single mother? Abstinence only teaching? Isn't that a war on young women? Not to mention that medicare pays for boner pills and penis pumps but not condoms or the pill. What is her stance on that, Cam?

Lynn Squance (235)
Monday November 19, 2012, 12:54 pm
Cam, Palin is nothing but a glory hound, her glory! A sack of hammers has more intelligence. It is amazing that anybody could take this bimbo seriously. As TomCat calls her: Drill Baby Dingbat! Just like Bachmann, a Guano Girl. Now wouldn't that be a sight --- Palin and Bachmann as the Republican/Teabagger ticket in 2016! Now that is how you spell FAILURE!

Arielle S (313)
Monday November 19, 2012, 12:58 pm
I don't hate her - I just agree with Lynn - a sack of hammers has more intelligence. She is an embarrassment to women and I'm not sure exactly where she belongs but it's certainly not in government.

David C (111)
Monday November 19, 2012, 1:25 pm
my teenagers say "great if the GOP doesn't want to win"

Onita N (44)
Monday November 19, 2012, 4:38 pm
I wouldn't vote for Palin if she was a Democrat. #1 She quit her term as governer (don't know why and don't care) #2 She struck me as being dumb as a box of rocks. #3 Pretty is as pretty does. This one is for the idiot that commented on men liking her looks. it just goes to show that if they vote for her they are thinking with the wrong head as usual.

Cam V (417)
Monday November 19, 2012, 4:50 pm
So because she is pretty she is dumb? How little some know. David, your teens need to get educated.

Cam V (417)
Monday November 19, 2012, 4:52 pm
You know what embarasses me Jason? Americans who are so dumbed down by their lying media they would not know the truth if it hit them between the eyes. To me that is not just embarassing (and I will be embarassed for the stupidity of America) it is alarming. That you would choose to elect corrupted officials over dishonest ones and then lament the outcome is downright alarming.

Patrice M (84)
Monday November 19, 2012, 9:19 pm
I see. If we don't want Sarah Palin for president, then we are stupid. Is that it?

That's what I mean. Republicans aren't clear on the concept of majority rule, a cornerstone of our government in America since the Mayflower Compact. They want what they want - that's all they know. When they don't get their own way, look out.

Robert K (31)
Tuesday November 20, 2012, 1:49 am
Apropos of nothing it seems everyone I send a green star has a cat avatar, and from years of having a cat sleep by my face I've developed an allergy to them.

BTW, would it be asking too much to have the ability to send a black star for ignorant posts? And, no, I don't mean Kanye West. ;o)


Robert K (31)
Tuesday November 20, 2012, 1:53 am
Actually, Angelica, if we do want Palin for president we're stupid. And with the load of hatred in her heart she shouldn't have a pretty name like Sarah, it should be Jezebel or Hortense. Apologies to any actual Jezebel or Hortense out there for the comparison.

Nancy M (168)
Tuesday November 20, 2012, 6:24 am
@Angelica. You do realize that is EXACTLY why they insist we are a republic. They ARE against majority rule, believing that properly elected officials in DC will keep us from that "Mob rule". BINGO!

I just keep wondering why they support the military which is around to save the world for democracy.

Patrice M (84)
Tuesday November 20, 2012, 8:07 am
Somebody needs to tell them that the Mayflower Compact wasn't about sitting around and putting on cosmetics!

If they are against majority rule, then they are for fascism. Fascism like theirs has no place in this country and the people have just shown that they will not stand for it.

Nancy M (168)
Tuesday November 20, 2012, 9:20 am
Not disagreeing.

Patrice M (84)
Tuesday November 20, 2012, 1:14 pm
Good point Nancy. They want Democracy in third world countries but they don't want it here. Ironic, isn't it?

faith v (16)
Wednesday November 21, 2012, 5:25 am
Brilliant idea. Fully agree with Robert K.

Patrice M (84)
Wednesday November 21, 2012, 6:07 am
I don't want her to be president. I just want her to run and get trounced completely by the liberal candidate. Besides she'd be funny in the dabates.

Nancy M (168)
Wednesday November 21, 2012, 7:13 am
YEah, it's true. If Palin ran, we'd have alot of fun in 2016.

Rita W (1)
Wednesday November 21, 2012, 8:27 am

Past Member (0)
Wednesday November 21, 2012, 2:25 pm
Liberals can say what they want about Sarah Palin but what they cannot take away from her is that she is far more experienced to become President of the United States than Barack Obama ever was. Sarah Palin was a Governor and a Mayor. Obama, well, he never had a meaningful job in his entire life and as a short timer as a Senator he voted present over 100 times and didn't leave a voting trail.

I don't believe we've seen the best of Sarah Palin yet. The biased left wing media did quite a number on her in 2008 and she recovered. She was forced to step down as Governor due to the left wing lawsuits but I believe she recovered from it and went on to do good work for the Republican Party.

Like her or hate her....she is far more accomplished than any woman here on Care 2 and has more experience at governing in her little finger than Obama had on both hands.

Cam, I don't know that I agree with you that she should run in 2016 but I do believe there's a place for her at the table in Washington DC. If lying/Benghazi Rice can be considered for Secretary of State anything can happen. Obama filled his administration with ivy league PhD's who don't know what they are doing because they've managed large organizations and they've never led businesses that employ people and provide products or services and make a profit at the same time. From where I sit, Obama has an empty vat of intelligence surrounding him. Now take another look at Sarah Palin. She has the credentials that none of them have other than an ivy league education which obviously means nothing.

Robert K (31)
Thursday November 22, 2012, 2:59 am
Howis it up in your ivory tower where facts go to die? Please, God, make her the nominee. She was an incredibly bad mayor and governor and on the verge of criminal trial instigated by her own party when she made the only good decision of her life, to resign.

Past Member (0)
Thursday November 22, 2012, 3:14 am
You have the facts wrong. She had an excellent record as a Governor and a Mayor. Too bad your biased left wing resources stunt your growth in learning the truth.

I don't believe she'll be nominated in 2016. Women don't seem to do well as a presidential candidate. Look at Susan Rice today....made to look like a fool in her Benghazi comments. Neither the democratic or republican party seem to be ready for a woman president.

Past Member (0)
Saturday November 24, 2012, 7:44 am
Palin / Akin 2016! Hell yeah! How's that sound, Diane?

Nancy M (168)
Saturday November 24, 2012, 8:55 am
" Obama filled his administration with ivy league PhD's who don't know what they are doing because they've managed large organizations and they've never led businesses that employ people and provide products or services and make a profit at the same time."

Since when is a government (or any government) a business. You know..the government does not provide for profit products. It is not supposed to make a profit. If someone has managed a large organization including handling the budgets, they have done exactly what they should be doing in government.

Robert K (31)
Saturday November 24, 2012, 10:01 am
Our two corporation leading CEOs have been Hoover and GW Bush. Not ewxactly a shining endorsement of businessmen knowing the first thing about running a government. In fact businessmen shouldn't even be allowed to run as they are the most incompetent of all.

Cam V (417)
Saturday November 24, 2012, 11:19 pm
First of all Angelica were I an American I would be an independant and a member of neither party actually as they are BOTH corrupted. Secondly I have called NO ONE any kind of name in this thread and again you owe me an apology for inferring that I did.

Funny how just the mention of her name brings out all the bad there is in people eh Diane? Makes them attack like ..... well I will leave that unsaid as some things should be left.

Past Member (0)
Sunday November 25, 2012, 4:17 am
Well, Cam, Sarah Palin is a powerful woman. She promoted The Tea Party candidates and most of them won. She was instrumental in the changing of the guards so to speak in the 2010 November tsunami vote where Americans voted out the spending liberals and ushered in the no spending conservatives. After this election they literally shut Obama down in the senate. Sarah Palin, take a bow. No wonder the liberals hate and fear her. Americans love Sarah Palin. Her popularity remains high.

Cam, the one constant out here on the public political forum is that the liberals always resort to taking the low road, name calling, temper tantrums, etc when they run up against republican talking points. It is rare to read a comment, an adult comment, from the left expressing their political opinions. I've had posts written that they "hate" me, I'm a racist because I don't support Obama, yes, I've read all of the ugly comments lodged at me simply because my vision for America is the exact opposite of the position they take.

We are a two party political base for a reason. It is because we are different in what we feel is the wrong direction for our country. I'm out here to share my political beliefs. The name calling and personal attacks should be flagged as inappropriate each and every time they occur. Care 2 put that option out here for a reason....and it works both ways.

What is missing out here is adult conversation. And, if you'll notice they same people are out here supporting a socialist president. You would think with over 21 million membership that there would be more support for Obama. This is precisely why I am out here. Readers need to read republican talking points otherwise they are being force fed by the biased left wing agenda. Freedom of speech is still alive and well in America.

Although I do not believe that Sarah Palin will run in 2016, I do believe she will one day be in our White House. As a woman, she has accomplished a great deal. She is just getting started politically IMO. Her day will come meanwhile she is only getting better and learning more about how a country should be led to remain the greatest country in the world.

Bottom line, Cam, she has not lost her popularity and we haven't seen the best of her yet.

Robert K (31)
Sunday November 25, 2012, 5:04 am
No, liberals always take to telling the truth, something conservatives are incapable of. What you ignorantly call name calling is us calling you out on your lies.

When Obama took office, 85% of the national debt had been run up by the Republicans and most of his spending since has been to repair their misuse of government funds including paying off the unfunded Bush war bills.

In 2010, the Republican landslide was about jobs. Nearly every Republican ad was about "where are the jobs?" Well, those of us who actually paid attention knew where they where they were, right where thew Bush administration caused them to be, mostly in Asia, thanks to his tax breaks to help them send them there, and thanks to Republicans in the Senate filibustering all 44 of the job creation bills the house sent them. But the ignorance and stupidity of folks like you and Cam mistakenly thought it was the fault of Democrats.

Since LBJ signed the civil rights bill and all the racist Democrats in the South became Republicans, in nearly 100% of cases where Republicans and Democrats disagree, the Democrats are right.

No Republican president since Eisenhower has increased spending as little as Obama.

And all your points about the election are fiction.

BTW, spending isn't part of our problem, under taxation of the rich is. Do some research, don't buy into right wing lies. Throughout the history of the world, tax cuts for the rich have always caused this kind of problem. Our spending is the second lowest in the free world, and except for the countries that have instituted austerity, all of them are doing better than us. For every dollar spent on tax cuts for the rich, the economy loses 68 cents. For every dollar for unemployment the economy gains 86 cents. There are similar gains for every dollar spent on other safety net programs.

So, when I call you stupid or ignorant, I'm on firm ground, not insulting you, just calling you what you are.

Past Member (0)
Sunday November 25, 2012, 8:27 am
The largest expenditure in federal spending is welfare, medicaid and medicare. With ObamaCare the numbers are in that it has already been more costly and will continue to grow. This is what we know if we are doing our due diligence as concerned Americans for the future of our country's economic growth.

Don't kid yourself about Obama's spending...he is the FIRST President to bring two credit downgrades to our country. His $860 billion failed stimulus and bailouts tipped the scales. The only reason a country receives a downgrade is debt to income ratio. That translates into we have more debt than we can pay based on the revenue coming in. Republicans want to cut spending across the board. With over $60 billion a year in fraud and abuse in our entitlement programs, we are throwing that money away every single year and no president has attempted to fix it. Look at the enormous rise in food stamps under Obama and extended unemployment payments when all he had to do early in 2009 was LOOK at our small businesses who employ 53% of middle class Americans and give them tax incentives to hire and have certainty over the next five years that their taxes would not go up. Even the banks won't lend to small businesses. Instead of helping the middle class, President Obama, Mr. Cloward-Piven Strategy believer, turned immediately to grabbing full control of a country's healthcare....classic socialist Cloward-Piven. Know who Obama is. He could've been a Rock Star early in 2009 by stimulating immediate growth and lowering the unemployment rate but he didn't do that. Liberals need to ask themselves why he threw a few bones at them instead of giving their confidence to hire and grow their businesses.

These aren't ring wing lies. I will direct you to the massive number of biased left wing media outlets that constantly ignore who Obama is and the destruction direction in which he is taking our country.

Riobert, you can cite racism all you like but when you do you repeat something that is no longer relevant. Every single person in America is born a FREE person. Every American has the same opportunities in life. It comes down to the personal choices Americans make for themselves. We are judged on the personal choices we make for ourselves. Period. There are many Americans born into poverty who took advantages of opportunities before them and made the decision to learn a trade or go to college. They took out student loans and got jobs to support themselves and their families. And, yes, they are paying back their student loans.

Calling Republicans stupid and ignorant is all you've got, that and tossing the worn and tattered race card at people who don't support Obama. I would say that the Republicans are not stupid and ignorant. You are insulting anyone when you resort to calling them names. You are incapable of self reflection if you believe you are not insulting people who don't think like you.

Past Member (0)
Sunday November 25, 2012, 8:33 am
Obama killed the growth of jobs early in 2009. He decided to spend an entire year on his legacy healthcare bill instead of helping the middle class by investing in our small businesses. This is why I call Obama incompetent however many Republicans would call him very smart because the government controlled healthcare brings him closer to his goal of a socialist America. It wasn't the responsibility of the Republicans to bring job growth to our country. It was the responsibility of the President to invest in the private sector to stimulate the economy and that, in turn, would've grown the job numbers.

Notice that I do not call you stupid and ignorant because you aren't capable of understanding what stimulating the economy means to growth in our country.

Robert K (31)
Sunday November 25, 2012, 9:00 am
No, Republicans with their anti-American jobs filibusters have killed growth for 4 years, but in 2010 there were more jobs added than in the entire 8 years of Bush.

No, you can't legitimately call me ignorant or stupid because I'm right and you're so wrong that it defies logic.

And if you think Obama is a socialist, it just reinforces how little you know. And "Obamacare" iNOT government controlled healthcare. Not by a long shot! One reason I call you stupid is because you parrot all those right wing extremist positions and every one of them is so stupendously wrong that no well educated person believes them. Now lots of people stand to gain from the destruction of the country, so they support the scumbags who do and who pay for their campaign ads. But if you support Republicans you can no longer call yourself either patriotic or religious. You are neither!

Past Member (0)
Sunday November 25, 2012, 9:36 am
Robert, I will never drop down to your level so don't expect me to respond to your comment that I'm ignorant and stupid because I don't think like you. I believe I'm a better American for understanding that we have a two party system for a reason. Our visions for a better America are different. That doesn't make either one of us bad people. How we express ourselves defines who and what we are.

Obama has a socialist agenda for our country. When a country takes full control of the healthcare in a country it is socialist. Because without controlling the healthcare, they can't control the other pieces that are necessary to take a country down the socialist path. Perhaps you would benefit from more reading especially as it pertains to socialist countries in our world.

You appear to be a very angry man. Perhaps you need to find out why you have difficulty communicating on a public political forum like an informed adult. I've always been taught that when your enemies start to call you names you've hit a nerve and that's when you know they can't respond to your talking points.

So, Robert, lighten up, and keep your power when posting. You give that power away when people stop reading what you've written because it is full of anger and name calling.

Robert K (31)
Sunday November 25, 2012, 10:47 am
Oh for God's sake, when every post you make consists of outright lies or unparalleled ignorance, you'd need an extension ladder to "lower" yourself to (another ignorant lie) to my level. And, just so you know, I was a Republican from 1952 until 2000, which is where I learned this writing style. I still know how to use facts to take you down, but I quit lying. Why don't you stop lying too? I'd certainly be nicer to you if you did. I might even get to liking you if you were honest.

I have no problem with people disagreeing with me if they stick to facts, something that I've never seen you do.

Robert K (31)
Sunday November 25, 2012, 11:15 am
Look in the mirror Diane, you're the only one who angers me and it's because you keep spouting the same old lies repeatedly even after it's appareent to anyone with a brain that you are a tool and a fool.

Now do everyone a favor and leave here and go to NewsMax where your ignorance and lies are revered. You don't belong in a place with rational people.

Cam V (417)
Sunday November 25, 2012, 6:37 pm
I usually try and refrain from lowering myself to the level of name calling but you tweaked my last nerve Robert. The only ignornant people are those who beleive propaganda instead of truth. Those who have nothing better to do than call other posters names simply because they do not agree with you. You do that a lot.

It points out to many that you just might be an intollerant, bigoted person who will never allow anyone else to have a difference of opinion and respect them for it. You sir are the ignorant one here and as this is a story I posted if you cannot be courteous to others make like a bee and ignore the stories I put up okay?

Past Member (0)
Sunday November 25, 2012, 7:32 pm
"First of all Angelica were I an American I would be an independant and a member of neither party actually as they are BOTH corrupted."

There's the BIG right wing lie. Never a bad word spoken about the fascist right but here you are. Pushing a moron that built a lake house while hiding the lumber in the tab for the rec center. THAT'A why she quit. She was busted for several dishonest abuses of power. She HAD to quit. See the movie.

You post every negative, made up bull sh*t story the right can put out on Obama and lie to our faces with "were I an American I would be an independant"!! That's 2 lies. What's with you sociopaths? Your whole party lives on lies. Borrowing time you can never get back. Keep on digging. We're all watching.

Why is it, only half of us learned not to lie. Knowing our parents always knew the truth. Then we learned how to spot lies ourselves and the other half is doing it well into adulthood?

Cam V (417)
Sunday November 25, 2012, 9:00 pm
Shows how little you know Jason. Another uniformed American who bought lies instead of truth. I have always maintained that were I an American I would be an independant. Never said I would be a Republican. Support Palin? You bet. She is a Conservative. Followed her for years because ALASKA SHARES A BORDER WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA so do I know more about her than you do? Yes, in fact I know more truths about Palin than most Americans. KNEW of her before most of you did as I was following her political career .... Great lady and honest to boot.

Nancy M (168)
Monday November 26, 2012, 6:24 am
However, Cam, given that few in America would support her or vote for her, why would you want her to run for President? It would be giving a clear victory to the Dems.

Cam V (417)
Monday November 26, 2012, 2:03 pm
As opposed to who Nancy? You really link after the narrow victory this last election cycle independents are not more aware of the fact they have been fed a lot of propaganda by the GOP? You really think that the personal attacks lobbed in these last elections by the Dems made them more popular among the people (and yes, the GOP do it as well though are not as 'good' at it).

Your political arena in America is a very dirty one indeed and were I a voter I would want that cleaned up and look for the truth myself. She did more in two years than most Governors do in eight. Then when she returned to Alaska the Dems refused to work with her which is something they had been doing before she walked onto your national stage. Why was that I wonder? Why would ANYONE care that she continued to be a good and effective public servant? Why would anyone want to stop her from continuing to be an effective public servant? Why Nancy?

Nancy M (168)
Monday November 26, 2012, 2:09 pm
" You really link after the narrow victory this last election cycle independents are not more aware of the fact they have been fed a lot of propaganda by the GOP?"

The victory was not narrow. At least not compared to what we have often gotten.

"Your political arena in America is a very dirty one indeed and were I a voter I would want that cleaned up and look for the truth myself."

Truth, sure. Let's get ird of Citizens United and then we might have some.

Palin- as I said it's over for her. And even with all of the wonderful things you say about her, I would not vote for her EVER for some very important reasons of my own.

Yes, indeed, WHY? You are right. Few do.

Past Member (0)
Monday November 26, 2012, 2:24 pm
It's true, Palin isn't the biggest baffoon in the repug party. That distinction goes to her supporters, as evidenced in this thread.


Robert K (31)
Monday November 26, 2012, 4:15 pm
God Cam! She's never been a good public servant, never done anything worthwhile and almost certainly has an IQ lower than Dumbya who's is 99.

Where do you come up with these delusions?

Past Member (0)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 4:35 pm
Robert, so what is Obama's IQ? Read anything on the internet? No? Why not? Was the internet scrubbed clean of Obama's college records? Yes? How would you know what anyone's IQ is? Are you speculating here? Tell me please Obama's IQ.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 6:00 pm
Diane, so, what's your IQ?

Past Member (0)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 6:11 pm
MJM, what is your IQ? We aren't politicians are we? Put things in the right prospective and don't go the childish route in posting. We are the taxpayers. Our money is sent to Washington DC every month. Do we not have a right to demand that we have elected officialwho should know more than we know to run our country?

If you took the time to follow the dialogue you would not have asked me that question. Think before you post.

Robert K (31)
Tuesday November 27, 2012, 7:41 pm
I know mine. I used to be in Mensa, but left 35 years ago. FYI, it's the same as Jayne Mansfield's was.

Past Member (0)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 2:40 am
MJM, the point is we need to believe that we have solid leadership in our White House. High IQ's are one thing but it's not a secret that people with IQ's have difficulty using it in a productive way. I read a study that showed that people with C averages in college were more successful in business. It went on to state that the reason for that is that they were "well rounded" individuals. Being smart is one thing. It's how a person uses it that is important.

Robert K (31)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 4:37 am
So, guys, compensating for your own low intelligence levels? S'plains a lot....more!

Robert K (31)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 5:12 am
Diane, you may be done with me, but I can still inform others of your abject ignorance. For instance:

"Obama has a socialist agenda for our country. When a country takes full control of the healthcare in a country it is socialist. Because without controlling the healthcare, they can't control the other pieces that are necessary to take a country down the socialist path. Perhaps you would benefit from more reading especially as it pertains to socialist countries in our world. "

Healthcare isn't run by the government, they just set the ground rules. They now require insurance companies to pay at least 80% of their income on actual healthcare. I find it amusing that you think that's socialist. Now, if your husband really is a retired Navy Captain, and I'm not doubting that, in fact I admire that, but you should know that his paycheck all those years came from our most socialist agenda of all, the military, and your free healthcare from his job is the only socialist healthcare in the country. Does this mean you will give it up? You should if you are honest to your beliefs.

As far as Obama bringing two credit downgrades to the country, the credit rating agencies said they came as a result of Republican obstruction.

Obama didn't kill the growth of jobs, the Republican policies did. Under the Bush plan we were losing 850,000 jobs a month. Under Obama the house passed 44 job creation bills, some of which were Republican plans. The Republicans filibustered every one of them to death. In 2010 we added more jobs than in the entire 8 years under Bush.

When LBJ was Senate majority leader there was 1 filibuster in 6 years, under Reid there have been 386. That should tell you just how anti-American the Republican party has become.

I could go on for hours about your ignorance, because I choose to think it is ignorance, not stupidity or treasonous behavior.

And, no, I'm not a very angry man, I do get angry when I see lies posted ad infinitum by people like you and Cam. I can agree with people who post things I am unaware of and teach me that I was wrong, and change my mind, but I did that for you repeatedly for months and you stubbornly refused to stop telling the lies that have been proven wrong over and over again.

Robert K (31)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 5:19 am
Oh yeah, welfare is far from our biggest spending item. First is the interest on our national debt, mostly caused by Republicans, second is the military. Corporate welfare far outstrips welfare to the people, and the biggest block of welfare recipients is single white women with children. So, we should starve the children so that you can make an extra hundred bucks a year?

Plus, there's the fact that every dollar spent on the safety net brings a profit to the country. We get back 1.86 for every dollar spent on unemployment, which, by the way, was paid for from paychecks. Every dollar in reduced taxes for the rich costs us a loss of 68 cents to the economy. So, why are we even having this discussion? You and your party have nothing on your side but lies.

Robert K (31)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 5:25 am
So, you think being the mayor of a town of 7800 people and the corrupt governor of a state of 626,000 (she was hounded out of office by the republicans, not the Democrats as someone else claimed) is better preparation for the presidency than being a US Senator from a state with cities with more population than Alaska?

I'd love to know your reasoning on that score.

Nancy M (168)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 6:03 am
I can believe that many "C" students are better at business than the Phi Beta Kappas however, our federal government is NOT a business. While handling a budget is part of running the government, we have no products to produce and sell. But we do have many other things that need to be done.

Nancy M (168)
Wednesday November 28, 2012, 12:37 pm
Public sector jobs exploded? Not the statistics that I have read. No, not at all. Of course, the contractors who make more money were laid off first. I can't explain something that doesn't exist.

Business? Since when are "public sector" jobs (which have been frozen at the federal level for most classes, BTW) business?

IN any case, what are we supposed to do? Lay them all off and have even more people without work. Makes no sense.

Past Member (0)
Thursday November 29, 2012, 3:07 am
Obama has stated on numerous occasions that our highest expenditure is medicare and if you don't believe that then take your questions to Obama. I thought you folks believed everything he says.

Yes, for every dollar Obama spends he has to borrow $.42 on every dollar. It's all bad. We need massive reform in medicare and medicaid and we need to clean up the $60 billion a year in fraud and abuse which is a shameful waste of taxpayer dollars.

Government isn't and should not be in the business of creating jobs. The private sector creates jobs. That will never change unless, of course, the liberals get their wish to be a socialist country then, of course, the government would take total control over our lives and decide what is good for us.

Nancy M (168)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 5:49 am
Not to mention all the food stamps and other government benefits that WE are paying for because the greedy CEOs can't see fit to pay people appropriately or provide them with health insurance. Walmart should be ashamaed of itself.

And BTW, the Hostess CEOs will be getting bonuses this year too.

Past Member (0)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 11:11 am
Liberals, you blame republicans and large corporations when your own President has done the very same thing with his green companies which have all gone bankrupt.

Get a clue.

Nancy M (168)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 11:36 am
"Two months after Biden’s visit, EnerDel corporate parent Ener1 paid $725,000 in bonuses to three executives — including $450,000 to then-CEO Charles Gassenheimer, who led Biden on the tour. This January, Ener1 filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. "

The bonuses going to corporations is an issue. However, I don't see that Obama has forced it to happen so much as providing the grants to the company, as many companies do receive grants and contracts.

It's wrong regardless of who is doing it. Did Obama endorse this? Doubtful. Can't blame Obama so much as I can blame corporate policies in general.

Past Member (0)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 2:26 pm
Corporations are stockholder owned companies and the government doesn't have a say so in their profit margin, profits and the executive bonuses. They have a Board of Directors who decide who gets a bonus and how much. I am always dumbfounded why the liberals are always beating up on the corporations who provide jobs for millions of Americans plus a wide range of benefits. Why should you care how much corporations "earn" and what they pay the CEO's who were smart enough to not only keep them in the black but also hand out bonuses to the employees?

Why do liberals despise the wealth earners in our country? It doesn't make sense to me.

Nancy, my comment above wasn't necessarily directed at you. Obama's green companies were taxpayer funded and that was WRONG. He had no business trying to pick winners in the private sector. Our taxdollars went up in smoke....gone....poof.....wave bye bye to our hard earned taxes. From where I sit everything Obama has done over the past four years has died a taxpayer funded dead on arrival. There's not one person in Obama's handpicked ivy league brigade that has an ounce of business experience. And it shows. If Obama was telling me to bet on a certain horse, I would bet on another one.

Nancy M (168)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 2:47 pm
Diane, I know that.

But any corporation that is giving bonuses to executives who have ruined the company, is IMHO, morally bankrupt as well as financially bankrupt.

These bonuses ARE the problem with America.

"Why should you care how much corporations "earn" and what they pay the CEO's who were smart enough to not only keep them in the black but also hand out bonuses to the employees? "

Because they aren't always keeping the company in the black. And as the company is going down, they will take from the workers adn give to themselves.

Green companies?

I do see your point about picking the companies but how is that any different than military contractors being picked from contract to contract or SBIR grants going to biotech and pharmaceutical businesse?

Our tax dollars had already gone poof. Honestly, one bubble after another, few if any of them having to do with Obama. I can only say that he hasn't fixed a thirty year mess in the four years he has been in office. That much I will agree with you on.

"Why do liberals despise the wealth earners in our country? It doesn't make sense to me. "

I only "despise" them when they could be doing a better job for their company and country. But when Walmart executives are making millions while their workers have to be on food stamps and other government benefits to survive, there is a major problem.


Past Member (0)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 3:47 pm
Nancy, I cannot adequately tell you how much I enjoy your posts even though I don't agree with you on several of your points. It's refreshing to read adult conversation out here.

Regarding the military contracts: The difference is Presidential influence and lack of processes in place to at least try to prevent violation of contractual regulation and fraud.

Regarding large corporations/bonuses: These companies are privately owned. We have no control over how they intend to run their companies. Employees don't have any skin in the game. They were hired to do a job. If they don't like the pay or the atmosphere they simply change jobs. Employees aren't in a position to tell their employers who to pay and how much. It's a job. Unless someone is in the higher ranks with a company, they fall into the employee category. Again, don't like your job and don't think you are earning enough money? Get another job. Imagine how it would be if we lived in a socialist company where you had to stay in a job that drove you crazy. In America, people between companies all the time. I have a great job and I'm paid well but if I didn't like what was going on in my office and knew I couldn't change it, I'd start looking around for another job.

And, finally, if the people who work at WalMart are unhappy with their jobs then they need to find another job. When they took the job they understood what the pay would be. This is why I consistently post that we are all a product of the choices we make in life (I give exception to the disabled for whatever reason) and when a young person decides that they aren't going to finish high school, or learn a trade or go to college they seal their faith for the rest of their life: minimum wage Far more Americans chart their life path by going to college and many get their master's degrees and, yes, many have college loans, and, yes, most of them are repaid. It comes down to personal choices. Try selling to our college graduates that they need to share their salaries with people who didn't want to do the hard work to get a college degree.

Past Member (0)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 3:50 pm
sorry for the typos: "when people move between companies"

"if we lived in a socialist country"

Nancy M (168)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 5:01 pm
Diane, your money and mine are paying for food stamps for hard workers at times working more than one job. I have every right to say that it wrong. In fact, that means I HAVE SKIN in the game. Walmart can pay them more. Walmart can provide them with benefits. It woudl hardly put a dent in their profts. And yet they would rather leech of us. THAT is what is wrong with America. ANd yes, the college graduates you mentioend ARE sharing their salaries with all those Walmart employees who are on food stamps and medicaid.

No, not everyone has many "choices". College graduates are now making minimum wage. In some towns, the main employers IS Walmart.

Robert K (31)
Saturday December 1, 2012, 9:56 pm
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. You can lead Diane to truth but you can't make her think.

BTW Diane, did you ever address the fact that socialism accounted for your paychecks , your retirement and your free lifetime healthcare? (her husband is a military retiree, and the military is our only socialist program, along with fire, police and teachers) Socialism works for the public good, capitalism for the few. More tomorrow when I can type with the lights on. 8^)

Past Member (0)
Sunday December 2, 2012, 4:15 am
Sorry, Robert, no socialism there. It just isn't true. Our military exists to protect our country from predatory nations particularly socialist states. It is a volunteer organization. When a person puts 30 years into our military they receive a pension based on their years of working there the same as a large corporation. So, no, I'm not buying what you are saying. There are two ways to look at this. You see it one way and I see it another way.

Nancy, it always comes down to the personal choices we make for ourselves. If we elect at a young age not to go to college or learn a trade that can support us and our families then we chart a life path that means we will earn minimum wages the rest of our life unless, of course, we start a business and it becomes successful.

Why are some college graduates making minimum wage today? It is due to high unemployment over the past four years under Obama. He delivered two huge uncertainties to our corporations and small business owners....a hefty tax if they didn't provide healthcare and raising taxes on those corporations and small businesses. Obama shut down the job growth in our country and this is precisely why our college graduates cannot find a job. If you have a problem with this take it to Obama. Don't bring it to the republicans as they are against raising taxes and the ObamaCare tax. Obama is a job killer.


Robert K (31)
Sunday December 2, 2012, 5:20 am
Your reply proves definitively that you have no idea what socialism is,. The military absolutely is socialism. You seem to fight that idea because you wrongly believe socialism is a bad thing. In some instances it may be, just as in many more cases capitalism is. When the tax code allows corporatists to but elections you can see where socialism is a better idea.

Do NOT make the simplistic argument that Soviet Communism is socialism It was closed to unregulated capitalism and is what always happens when capitalism runs amok when not strictly regulated. They just got there in a different manner.

Please do not think for a moment that I disrespect your husband's service, nor do I resent or dispute his rights to his pension and healthcare. The VA saved my life when I was badly wounded and spent nearly a year in one. That doesn't mean it's not socialism. If you think being in the military being voluntary means it's not socialist, then you need to read up on socialism, but not in some right wing nut job essay, in a scholarly treatise. And my point about you receiving free healthcare wasn't because I think you shouldn't get it, it was to point out your hypocrisy in believing you deserve it but others don't.

Robert K (31)
Sunday December 2, 2012, 5:29 am
Also, Obama had nothing to do with the unemployment. Each year since 2010 we've added more jobs than during the entire Bush administration. Stupid conservative policies like the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which Clinton should have vetoed, and tax breaks to help corporations to outsource jobs, and fighting unions has caused the problems, and filibustering every one of the Pelosi house's 44 job creation bills including a number of them which were originally Republican bills is what has caused the slow recovery.

Want someone to blame for the actual problem? Start with McConnell in the Senate and Boehner and Cantor in the House, not to mention the CEOs who shipped our jobs overseas to make themselves richer at the expense of the workers and the country.

That's why your suggestion that the college students and others just find another job is so laughable.

Past Member (0)
Sunday December 2, 2012, 6:47 am
When George W. Bush stepped down unemployment was at 7%. Obama has kept it at 11% when you factor in those who stopped looking for jobs it goes as high as 14.4%. Obama hasn't added jobs. The private sector has added jobs because many businesses continue to thrive depending on which market they are invested in. So, there is no real clear cut reason as there are many variables as to why Obama's unemployment number remains high. Obama invested our money in many green companies with his $860 failed stimulus. Those jobs he added? Cost the taxpayer over $350,000 per job. Their jobs are gone along with the green companies who went bankrupt. An astute businessman Obama is not. Obama could've lowered unemployment drastically early in 2009 by giving his full attention to the middle class in our country by lifting up the small businesses with a guarantee so that they could map out a five year plan. He didn't do that. Instead, using The Cloward-Piven Strategy he opted to go the socialist route by grabbing the government run healthcare. If a government does not control healthcare in a country it cannot go socialist. Obama mandated that the American people buy ObamaCare....that's a socialist move. Obama has not created any jobs. Obama has killed job creation in our country. The federal government has no business running our healthcare. Their track record in medicare and medicaid is a whopping $60 billion a year in fraud and abuse. Bad track record. If large corporations ran a deficit like that they would go bankrupt.

Depending on where a person lives and works dictates what they will earn as an hourly wage. The average hourly wage where I live is at least $12.00 an hour. If a person lives in a small rural town where a business cannot support $12.00 an hour and make a profit then that becomes a personal choice for the worker. The worker has options; learn a trade that is needed in that rural area or move to a larger city where the opportunities are greater. No matter what you say, Robert, at the beginning of each day and at the end of each day, it always comes back to personal choices. People need to decide on getting an education to make higher wages and if they don't they chart their life path that will dictate what they earn based on their education.

Obama shipped jobs out of our country. He sent our tax dollars to Brazil to drill which has created millions of jobs for the Brazilians and the Chinese. Solar panel production went to the Chinese. Certain parts of the auto industry have gone overseas. So, please, don't talk about the republicans and large corporations outsourcing. Look at the president you elected and do the research on his outsourcing since 2008.

CEO's are in the business to make a profit. If the union hourly wages are too high they'll take their production work overseas. If I were a business owner today and needed a product made and after receiving bids from the work the union bid was four times higher than what the Chinese were offering I'd be doing business with the Chinese. It's always about simple math. In England, two thirds of their businesses have left their country due to very high taxes. France has just raised taxes on the rich in their country to 75%. Guess what? These companies leave and take the jobs with them. Who can blame them? I certainly don't.

The college students who cannot find a decent job where they live need to be sending resumes out to larger cities where, in fact, there are jobs. Again, comes down to our personal choices. Some people like to sit back and complain and whine. Other people will pick up the ball and be proactive and go where the jobs are.

Robert, we will continue to disagree on just about every topic. You are blinded by the socialist ideas of Obama. My eyes, however, are clear and I can see right through Obama. The good news is that Obama only has four years and then he is gone but while he is here we'll see constant gridlock in the congress, high unemployment, more credit downgrades and very low growth in our country. Once he is gone, America can get back up on her feet, the jobs will come back, and America can once again hold her head high.


Nancy M (168)
Sunday December 2, 2012, 8:06 am
"Nancy, it always comes down to the personal choices we make for ourselves. If we elect at a young age not to go to college or learn a trade that can support us and our families then we chart a life path that means we will earn minimum wages the rest of our life unless, of course, we start a business and it becomes successful."

Choices? Yes, people have some choices. Some people have the choice between Harvard and Yale and having Daddy pay for either. Some have the choice between a rock and a hard place.

Yes, people have choices, not all choices are the same. Don't think otherwise.

YEs, some people pick up the ball and run and run and run and run and run..........

Robert K (31)
Sunday December 2, 2012, 11:27 am
God Diane, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. A brick wall papered with bull crap posters totally lacking in substance but peppered with excuses and propaganda totally lacking in honesty or substance.

Past Member (0)
Sunday December 2, 2012, 11:46 am
Nancy, get with the program. Yes, some people have to choose between Harvard and Yale. Obama chose Harvard and he paid for it. So, what do you say about that? Opportunities are in place for every American to have an education. Millions of Americans take out student loans every year and most of them pay back their loans. The ones that don't pay it back are going to one day be the adults who don't make their mortgage payments and are in credit card debt. There are many students from poor families who make the decision to go to college. Then there are others who simply don't want to put in the time to get a degree so they take the minimum wage jobs. It is a choice. We have lazy people in our country. You know that and then one day they wake up and are whining about not being able to find a job that will support them. That's when they make their problems someone else's problem. That is wrong.

Past Member (0)
Sunday December 2, 2012, 11:49 am
Robert, why is that? Because you can't get me to see things YOUR way? LOL. I'm not a sociialist leaning American, Robert. I believe in capitalism and I believe every American should have access to education. The majority of Americans are educated and have excellent jobs. We are talking about a small percentage of Americans who simply make bad choices in life and end up earning $7.00 an hour. Is that my fault? Is that your fault? No? Then whose fault is it?

Robert K (31)
Sunday December 2, 2012, 6:16 pm
Many people DO make bad choices, but the people you support force bad choices om millions by destroying the good choices.

You may not be a socialist leaning American, but you lived your whole life (judging by your posts) on the socialist teat and still are.

I don't show you scorn because you disagree with me, but because you will not listen to facts and act based on them. You only worship ideology, no matter how destructive it is.

I believe (but I could be wrong) it was Daniel Patrick Moynihan who said you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. You apparently believe you ARE entitled to your own facts, and that's why I lock horns wirh you so often.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.