The Farm Bill


With food prices at their highest level in memory, do you think the government should be taxing all Americans to give welfare payments to flush farmers? David Brooks breaks it down in today’s NY Times.

The growers of nearly every crop will get more money. Farmers in the top 1 percent of earners qualify for federal payments. Under the legislation, the government will buy sugar for roughly twice the world price and then resell it at an 80 percent loss. Parts of the bill that would have protected wetlands and wildlife habitat were deleted or shrunk.
81 senators and 318 reps voted for this $307,000,000,000 giveaway. For those of you keeping score at home, that's more than $1000 per person. They ignored the administration's request to free USAID's hands in providing food aid to countries at risk of famine, and their votes are sufficient to override President Bush's promised veto.

Senators Barack Obama and John McCain talk about accountability in government, combating special interests, and freeing legislation from the entanglements of lobbyists.
But Obama supported the bill, just as he supported the 2005 energy bill that was a Christmas tree for the oil and gas industries. Obama’s vote may help him win Iowa, but it will lead to higher global food prices and more hunger in Africa...

John McCain opposed the farm bill. In an impassioned speech on Monday, he declared: "It would be hard to find any single bill that better sums up why so many Americans in both parties are so disappointed in the conduct of their government, and at times so disgusted by it."
Write your congressman and senators: I pay for high food prices at the grocery store; don't make me pay another $1000 for them on April 15.

Posted by Chops at May 20, 2008 12:02 PM
Comments
Comment #253202

In case you’re curious, the roll call vote results are online for the House and the Senate. None of the presidential candidates were present for the last vote, which was not in question, but Obama released a statement strongly supporting the bill.

Posted by: Chops at May 20, 2008 12:23 PM
Comment #253205

Chops, you are absolutely correct, this farm bill is outrageous and President Bush should follow thru on his promise to veto it.

Not only did the Obamawan vote in favor of this huge give away, but Pelosie and Reid did as well. An unholy triumvirate showing their true political beliefs. All this liberal democrat talk about reforming Washington is just so much hoo-tah.

The dems are now on the receiving end of 60% of the lobbyist money and, they are proving that they are just as susceptible to money as some republicans.

John McCain served a powerful backhand at the bill and has not supported it as I expected.

When the two final candidates get the chance to debate the Obamawan will have a hard time supporting this vote as well as his vote in favor of the 2005 energy bill. And, McCain will destroy him with his stated readiness to negotiate with the world’s terrorist leaders.

Posted by: Jim M at May 20, 2008 12:43 PM
Comment #253217

What this shows us is that from Obama and the democratic party leadership right down to the republcian party….no one is representing us or brave enough to stand up and do the right thing. It’s all about power, money, special interests.

Yes children, even with Obama, it’s just more of the same, it’s business as usual. It’s the dirty property deals that gave Obama a 6 figure discount arranged by an influence pedaler, The corrupting ear marks of Obama and others. The ethanol death bill that Obama signed off on which was bad for humans, bad for the environment, but great for big money organizations with political clout.

Nothing changes, just the names of those “in” and the names of those “out”. And the screaming radicalized boobs on the sidelines pumping left vs right in a blind acceptance of the status quo.

Posted by: Stephen at May 20, 2008 2:01 PM
Comment #253220

The sugar subsidy is corporate welfare for Big Sugar, friends-in-low-places, especially in FL. Smaller farmers have sometimes resorted to growing a popular crop only sold for cash.

Posted by: ohrealy at May 20, 2008 2:11 PM
Comment #253235

The level of bloat, waste, graft, pork-barrel, and corporate welfare, and welfare for the wealthy is truly ridiculous.
Just check out these subsidies for one farm (H Bar H Farms Gp / Farwell, TX 79325):

    Year / Conservation Subsidies / Disaster Subsidies / Commodity Subsidies / Total USDA Subsidies 1995-2005:
  • 1995 _ $0 ___$0 _____ $40,614 ___$40,614

  • 1996 _ $0 ___$0 _____ $52,806 ___$52,806

  • 1997 _ $0 ___$0 _____ $42,550 ___$42,550

  • 1998 _ $0 ___$0 _____ $76,898 ___$76,898

  • 1999 $5,040 _$0 _____ $80,000 ___$85,040

  • 2000 $1,050 _$0 _____ $147,208 _ $148,258

  • 2001 $1,050 _$4,992 _ $229,849 _ $235,891

  • 2002 $1,711 _$0 _____ $131,314 _ $133,025

  • 2003 $1,050 _$0 _____ $128,299 _ $129,349

  • 2004 _ $0 __ $0 _____ $-8,199 __ $-8,199

  • 2005 _ $0 __ $76,348 _ $0 ______ $76,348

  • Total $9,901 $81,340 $921,339 __ $1,012,580
And that is just the tip of the severely bloated iceberg …
    (01) $57.3 Billion (year 2005; with 4,487 federal employees) for the Dept. of Education (Executive Branch)?
  • (02) $371 Billion (year 2005; with 2 million federal employess) for the (www.defenselink.mil/sites/) Dept. of Defense (Executive Branch)?

  • (03) $40 Billion (year 2005; with 180,000 federal employess) for the Dept. of Homeland Security (Executive Branch)?

  • (04) $66.8 Billion (year 2005; with 67,000 federal employees) for the Dept. of Health and Human Services (includes Medicare and Medicaid) (Executive Branch)?

  • (05) $Billions for subsidies for farms (some owned and operated by corporations) ?

  • (06) $Billions for welfare for foreign nations ?

  • (07) $Billions for the war on drugs?

  • (08) $19.1 Billion (year 2005; with 109,832 federal employees) for the Dept. of Agriculture (Executive Branch)?

  • (09) $5.8 Billion (year 2005; with 40,000 federal employees) for the Dept. of Commerce (Executive Branch)?

  • (10) $31.3 Billion (year 2005; with 16,100 federal employees) for the Dept. of Energy (Executive Branch)?

  • (11) $10.8 Billion (year 2005; with 71,436 federal employees) for the Dept. of the Interior (e.g. land management, Indian arts, park services, minerals, etc.) (Executive Branch)?

  • (12) $22.0 Billion (year 2005; with 109,000 federal employees) for the Dept. of Justice (e.g. FBI, Attorney General, ATF, prisons, Tax Division, etc.) (Executive Branch)?

  • (13) $11.9 Billion (year 2005; with 17,347 federal employees) for the Dept. of Labor (Executive Branch)?

  • (14) $10.3 Billion (year 2005; with 30,266 federal employees) for the Dept. of State (Executive Branch)?

  • (15) $61.6 Billion (year 2005; with 60,100 federal employees) for the Dept. of Transportation (Executive Branch)?

  • (16) $10.8 Billion (year 2005; with 115,897 federal employees) for the Dept. of the Treasury (Executive Branch)?

  • (17) $51.0 Billion (year 2005; with 219,000 federal employees) for the Dept. of Veteran Affairs (Executive Branch)?

  • (18) $Billions for the dysfunctional Judicial Branch (e.g. Supreme Court, Courts, etc.)?

  • (19) $Billions for the dysfunctional Legislative Branch (e.g. Senate, House of Representatives, President of the Senate, etc.) ?

  • (20) $Billions for the hundreds of Independent Agencies (e.g. National Science Foundation, NASA, Federal Reserve System, etc.)?

  • (21) $Billions for the dozens of quasi-official Agencies (e.g. Smithsonian, Technology Reinvestment Project, National Consortium for High Performance Computing, etc.) ?

  • (22) $Billions for the dozens of Federal Boards, Commissions, and Committees (e.g. Appalachian Regional Commission, Commission of Fine Arts, U.S. Institute of Peace, etc.) ?

  • (23) $Billions for the hundreds of Tangential Non-Government Agencies (e.g. Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center, The Food and Drug Law Institute, CSPAN, ) ?

  • (24) $Billions for the for these (acuf.org/issues/issue35/050503gov.asp) top 10 ways the federal government wastes money?

  • (25) $Billions for the hundreds of redundant programs:
    • 342 economic development programs;
    • 130 programs serving the disabled;

    • 130 programs serving at-risk youth;

    • 72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water;

    • 50 homeless assistance programs;

    • 45 federal agencies conducting federal criminal investigations.

Also, the tax system is REGRESSIVE. Warren Buffet paid a smaller percentage (17.7%) of federal taxes than his secretary (30%) making $60K per year. Some people think we have a PROGRESSIVE tax system. It’s not. It’s not even NEUTRAL (i.e. a flat income tax).

That and these other 10 abuses did not all come about by mere coincidence.
Abuses that are resulting in these 17+ economic conditions that have never been worse ever and/or since the 1930s and 1940s.

Maybe enough voters will become less complacent and apathetic when they are jobless, homeless, and hungry?

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect, and deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at May 20, 2008 3:45 PM
Comment #253237

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We should not have welfare for the rich!!!!!!!!!!!
They can go out and get an honest job like the rest of us!!!!!!

That includes no bid contracts handed out by the bush crime family!!!!!!!!!

It is the money wasted on the Iraq holocaust that is the first thing that should go!!!!!!

The oil companies don’t need welfare now that they have the price jack up to where they wanted it!!!!!!!!

All of the bush crime family economic policies should be reversed as soon as possible!!!!!!

The smirking chimp and the wing nuts are fools!!!!!!!!
They have destroyed their own country just to make a quick buck!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at May 20, 2008 3:54 PM
Comment #253239

As a Democrat, I am angry at Democratic support for this particular bill. There is good rational for supporting farm prices in certain times and circumstance as it is vital to keep a farming infrastructure intact. This Bill is an obvious pander on the part of all who voted for it (a sacrifice to the whole for the benefit of a few). There should be a farm bill, one that uses a comparatively modest amount of taxpayer money to encourage the production of HEALTHY foods; at least the tax payer would receive some benefit from this. Price supports for corn syrup producing > obesity/diabetes/coronary disease > greater cost to the tax payer (remember, it is Federal, State and Local tax dollars that pay for most of the people who are actually sick) , simply makes no sense. McCain is right-on here in his opposition to this.

Posted by: charles ross at May 20, 2008 4:12 PM
Comment #253250

Outraged, what is your well thought out position on Obama, Pelosi and Reid, all democrat leaders, on voting for this insane farm bill?

Posted by: Jim M at May 20, 2008 5:10 PM
Comment #253277

This is very interesting.

When you follow the money, you come to understand that the Democrats are the party of the establishment. This makes perfect sense, since government is the ultimate in status quo while the market is constantly bringing change.

But Dems have managed to sell the narrative that change comes only or mostly through government. When Obama calls for change, he is wisely not very specific because most government induced change means more intrusion, higher taxes and give away programs to the politically powerful.

That’s the Dems for you.

John McCain has the unique chance to bring real change. He has been an independent thinker all his life and now if elected he will not be controlled by anybody. That frightens the special interested, who are piling on the money to Obama and the Dems.

They what the rhetorical change Obama promises, not the real good change McCain would deliver.

Posted by: Jack at May 21, 2008 2:56 AM
Comment #253281
Jack wrote: They what [want] the rhetorical change Obama promises, not the real good change McCain would deliver.
“the real good change” ? ! ?

Jack, Thanks for “the real good” laugh (as if McCain has more to offer than either Obama or Hillary).
But, is it “real change” we’ll get, or just more waffling from a master waffler ?

Let’s see

  • McCain criticized TV preacher Jerry Falwell as “an agent of intolerance” in 2002, but has since decided to cozy up to the man who said Americans “deserved” the 9/11 attacks. (Indeed, McCain has now hired Falwell’s debate coach.)

  • McCain used to oppose Bush’s tax cuts for the very wealthy, but he reversed course in February 2006.

  • In 2000, McCain accused Texas businessmen Sam and Charles Wyly of being corrupt, spending “dirty money” to help finance Bush’s presidential campaign. McCain not only filed a complaint against the Wylys for allegedly violating campaign finance law, he also lashed out at them publicly. In April, McCain reached out to the Wylys for support.

  • McCain supported a major campaign-finance reform measure that bore his name. In June, he abandoned his own legislation.

  • McCain used to think that Grover Norquist was a crook and a corrupt shill for dictators. Then McCain got serious about running for president and began to reconcile with Norquist.

  • McCain took a firm line in opposition to torture, and then caved to White House demands.

  • McCain gave up on his signature policy issue, campaign-finance reform, and won’t back the same provision he sponsored just a couple of years ago.

  • McCain was against presidential candidates campaigning at Bob Jones University before he was for it.

  • McCain was anti-ethanol. Now he’s pro-ethanol.

  • McCain was both for and against state promotion of the Confederate flag.

  • McCain voted against the MLK holiday, but now he say he mad a mistake (funny how these revelations come about when someone is running for president, eh?).

  • McCain was for the regressive and un FairTax.org’s 30% National Sales Tax (23% inclusive), but now he isn’t? He wants to make the regressive tax system permanent.

  • McCain voted for the first illegal alien amnesty of 1986 and the failed amnesty of 2007, but McCain now (after 26 years in office) says he “gets it”. Yeah right. That’s real believable, eh? Again, it is interesting what revelations come about when someone is running for president, eh?

  • And McCain is both for and against overturning Roe v. Wade.
Waffle after waffle.

HHHHMMMmmmmmm … “real change” ? ! ?
More like, “more of the same”.
If you like the status quo, vote for McBush … uuuuhhhhmmmm … I meant McSame … uuhhhmmmm … I meant McCain.

Jack, How would you rate each candidate on the top 6 issue/categories that most Americans consider the most important issues (www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/)?

  • (01) : 42% - Economy

  • (02) : 21% - War in Iraq

  • (03) : 18% - Health care

  • (04) : 10% - Terrorism

  • (05) : 07% - Illegal Immigration

  • (06) : 02% - Other: (Abortion, Education , Energy, Environment, Free trade, Guns, Homeland Security, Housing, Iran, Same-sex marriage, Social Security, Stem cell research, Taxes)

How would you rate each candidate on these issues (here’s my estimates)?

  • (01) Clinton[_], McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[x], All[_]: Economy; Stop these 10 abuses (One-Simple-Idea.com/DisparityTrend.htm)

  • (02) Clinton[x], McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[x], None[_], All[_]: War in Iraq; bring home troops

  • (03) Clinton[_], McCain[_], Nader[x], Obama[x], None[_], All[_]: Health care; eliminate middle men, fraud, waste;

  • (04) Clinton[_], McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[x], All[_]: Terrorism, Homeland Security; secure our borders and existing laws and immigration laws;

  • (05) Clinton[_], McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[x], All[_]: Illegal Immigration; enforce existing laws; no amnesty

  • (06) Clinton[_], McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[?], All[_]: Social Security (stop plundering surpluses);

  • (07) Clinton[_], McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[?], All[_]: Education;

  • (08) Clinton[_], McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[?], All[_]: Energy;

  • (09) Clinton[_], McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[?], All[_]: Environment;

  • (10) Clinton[_], McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[?], All[_]: Free (and fair) trade;

  • (11) Clinton[_], McCain[_], Nader[_], Obama[_], None[?], All[_]: Taxation; make fair and simpler;

None of their positions and voting records/positions are much to brag about.
But McCain’s is especially sad.
But, that matters not to some Republicans who will vote along partisan lines (no matter what).

Regardless of who the next President is, the next 4 years do not look very encouraging, and the potential for adequate improvements are small.
The major reason is not only bad politicians, but too many bad voters that not only tolerate it, but empower it.
The potential for these 10 major abuses to continue to worsen the already deteriorating economic conditions are high, until enough voters finally decide they’ve been abused enough; until their pain level finally reaches as threshold.
Who can credibly argue that our fiscal situation (a massive $53.2 Trillion of total nation-wide debt) isn’t going to bring some pain to many Americans?
The next administration is going to inherit one of the worst situations in over 80 years.

The real solution available to voters is to simply vote for Democrats, or Republicans, or McCain, Or Obama, Or Hillary.
While one person can have the capacity for great harm (as demonstrated by George W. Bush (43)), there’s only so much one person can do.
Voters are delusional if they are hanging all their hopes and dreams on McCain, Or Obama, Or Hillary.
I don’t think voting only Democrat will be good enough either, which there is likely to be a lot of come 4-NOV-2008.

The real solution is for enough voters to do what they were supposed to be doing all along.

  • Stop repeat offenders.

  • Stop repeatedly rewarding incumbent politicians with 85% (or higher) re-election rates.

  • Stop letting the IN-PARTY and OUT-PARTY merely take turns while giving themselves a raise every year for accomplishing worse than nothing.
At any rate, the voters will have the government they elect and deserve (along with the increasingly painful consequences).

Start _ End __ Congress _ Re-Election _ Party Seat-Retention
Year __ Year ____ # _____ Rate ________ Rate
1989 __ 1991 __ 101 ____ 90.1% ________ 99.6%
1991 __ 1993 __ 102 ____ 87.7% ________ 98.3%
1993 __ 1995 __ 103 ____ 73.5% ________ 98.1%
1995 __ 1997 __ 104 ____ 79.8% ________ 88.2%
1997 __ 1999 __ 105 ____ 77.4% ________ 98.7%
1999 __ 2001 __ 106 ____ 89.2% ________ 99.3%
2001 __ 2003 __ 107 ____ 89.2% ________ 98.7%
2003 __ 2005 __ 108 ____ 87.9% ________ 98.1%
2005 __ 2007 __ 109 ____ 88.6% ________ 98.7%
2007 __ 2009 __ 110 ____ 84.9% ________ 93.1%
_____________ AVERAGE = 84.8% ________ 97.1%

The only thing that will (if anything) send a loud and clear message to do-nothing Congress is the ousting of as many irresponsible incumbent politicians as possible.

As you can see above, anti-incumbent sentiment is growing, as does the voters pain level (NOTE: some of the highest anti-incumbent voting periods in American history were during the Civil War and the Great Depression).
The last election certainly does not bode well for Republicans, who are quite likely to lose more seats in Congress and the Senate (and perhaps the Whitehouse too).
But you are right about one thing. Simply defecting to the Democrat party won’t solve anything.
The partisan warfare (and merely letting the IN-PARTY and OUT-PARTY take turns) only serves to delay the inevitable, but it won’t distract voters forever.
Eventually, pain trumps all else, and enough voters will finally become less complacent, apathetic, lazy, and delusional when enough of them are jobless, homeless, and hungry.

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect, and deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at May 21, 2008 8:27 AM
Comment #253282

CORRECTION:
The real solution available to voters is to [not] simply vote for Democrats, or Republicans, or McCain, Or Obama, Or Hillary.

Posted by: d.a.n at May 21, 2008 8:34 AM
Comment #253285

Comment #253250
Outraged, what is your well thought out position on Obama, Pelosi and Reid, all democrat leaders, on voting for this insane farm bill?
Posted by: Jim M at May 20, 2008 05:10 PM

Hello Jim M

It looks like they must disagree with me on this issue!!!!!!!
Not every one agrees with me on every issue!!!!!
I like to think for myself and make my own decision based on what I see!!!!!

We must be able to change our point of view on issues as the circumstances may change. There are no family farms left; these are corporations with million in assets.

I do not have a wing nut handbook to pull out of my pocket and get an answer for all circumstances without having to think for myself!!!!

I would say that this is an election year and this bill is a vote getter!!!!! It is like the smirking chimp and “I am a compassionate conservative” election slogan!!!!!!!! After the self appointed little prick took over our government all the sudden he was a war president!!!!!!

The only difference is that thousand of people won’t die from the effects of the farm bill.

Posted by: Outraged at May 21, 2008 9:09 AM
Comment #253288
not the real good change McCain would deliver

Jack:

I used to believe that of McCain. I wish I still did. I don’t any more.

Posted by: womanmarine at May 21, 2008 9:29 AM
Comment #253289

Outraged, you left off some exclamation marks in some of your paragraphs. Otherwise, how are we to know how you really feel?

Posted by: Matt at May 21, 2008 9:36 AM
Comment #253290

I am sorry Matt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at May 21, 2008 9:45 AM
Comment #253297


Dan: Thanks for posting a shortened version of John McCain’s political resume. Imagine if the entire crooked path of his political career was placed before the voters for scrutiny. I am sure that Obama’s and Hillary’s resumes are quite similar to McCains, only shorter.

Posted by: jlw at May 21, 2008 11:20 AM
Comment #253317

jlw, Yes, there are some similarities.

Whoever the next president is, voters should remember the election is about more than the office of president, and 85% to 90% re-election rates for Congress isn’t giving those in Congress much of an incentive to stop ignoring these abuses at the root of these deteriorating economic conditions.

Posted by: d.a.n at May 21, 2008 2:29 PM
Comment #253323

The smirking chimp just vetoed the farm bill!!!!!!!

The people that this will affect (Midwest Farmers) always vote for the wing nuts!!!!!!
The wing nuts are going to need all the votes they can get this year!!!!!!

The smirking chimp is shooting holes through the bottom off the Titanic to let the water out!!!!!!!!

Money for the Iraq holocaust must override everything!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at May 21, 2008 3:56 PM
Comment #253329

BILL H.R. 2419

With $9.4 Trillion National Debt, why is the federal government doing this ?

Ohhhhh … that’s right.
Because Congress persons are rewarded for bringin’ home the pork; rewarded with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.

I have a friend in Texas (someone who is quite wealthy; I won’t mention any names) who owns several thousand acres, and recieves hundreds of thousands of dollars in farm subsidies.

Are voters aware of the level of pork-barrel and subsidies going to the wealthy?

And with regressive taxation, who picks up the BILL?

I want a subsidy!

… so I can grow a garden on my 1/5 acre lot.

Posted by: d.a.n at May 21, 2008 5:12 PM
Comment #253332

“Outraged”…or not, who cares. President Bush has once again portrayed his wisdom, strength and willingness to do the right thing despite the wishes of the pandering politicians of both parties.

Unlike Clinton, Obama, Reid, Pelosie and a majority of others who support this horrendous “pork” bill, The President, along with the Republican candidate John McCain, put their party affiliation and political ambitions aside and did the right thing. Of such things is greatness made.

Liberals often complain about Washington favoring the rich and well connected but it’s just empty words for many who will not give credit to this disciplined veto by President Bush and the nay vote by our next President, John McCain.

Obama is on the stump trying to complete Carter’s failed attempt at a second term by telling the witless lemmings that he cares about them and then openly speaks in favor of this God-awful farm bill.

Obama continues to give voters reason to question his judgement and truthfullness. I would like to hear a “reasoned” explanation from an Obama supporter, other than the “outraged” one, as to why Obama should expect approval for his support of this bill from among his non big-farm fans.

Posted by: Jim M at May 21, 2008 5:36 PM
Comment #253352


“President Bush has once again portrayed his wisdom, strength and willingness to do the right thing despite the wishes of the pandering politicians of both parties.”

Jim M: That was meant to be a joke wasn’t it? Before the Democrats took control of Congress, how many pork bills did he veto? The answer is none. Now that he and McCain are pandering to get McCain into the Whitehouse, Bush is suddenly wise and strong.

Posted by: jlw at May 21, 2008 10:37 PM
Comment #253381
jlw wrote: Now that he and McCain are pandering to get McCain into the Whitehouse, Bush is suddenly wise and strong.

Good point !
Funny how G.W. Bush (43) finally found his veto pen (as if politics had nothing to do with it?).

But it’s a good thing that Bush vetoed that pork-laden BILL (full of welfare for the wealthy).

However, Congress may have enough votes (2/3) to push it through anyway?

That is why, regardless of who the next president is, voters should not forget about Do-Nothing Congress, who are largely to blame (along with voters) for these abuses over the past 30+ years, resulting in these deteriorating economic conditions, which have never been worse ever and/or since the 1930s and 1940s. Obviously, repeatedly rewarding Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates is not working, is it?

Posted by: d.a.n at May 22, 2008 11:44 AM
Comment #253387

jlw, actually my statement was meant to generate the exact feeling you described…that no matter what the President does, he will never receive any recognition from liberals for doing something right. And that my friend, is my point, America is so divided by ideology that even when a political opponent does the right thing, many American’s will not give him/her any credit.

Now comes a new liberal champion, the Obamawan with his soaring oratory of change and let’s all come together to overcome our problems. It won’t happen even if he becomes president and has a veto proof majority in congress.

Surely you understand that just as you will not recognize something good done by a Republican President (notice I did not say Conservative), many Republicans will not recognize anything good done by a Democrat (in Obama’s case Liberal) president.

The last president who had the ability to bring people together was Ronald Reagan. And, even with all his great skills and accomplishments, liberals today still will not give him any credit for all the good done in his presidential years.

For many, it is heresy to admit that a political opponent has done something good for the country. Politics has become religion for many and their religion does not have any of the redeeming features of Christianity.

Being critical of an opponent is a good thing and very American as long as it is fair, accurate and represents one’s own thinking. Being critical of an opponent as an attempt to aggrandize one’s preference is not a good thing.

Posted by: Jim M at May 22, 2008 1:05 PM
Post a comment