Interesting response. It immediately brought back memories of the liberal media camparing our current President to you know who... Think they knew something we didn't?

You make a valid point. A Republican President failed because he goverend like a Democrat.

What an awful track record. I believe only one candidate lost more elections before running for President than Romney. I think that was Abraham Lincoln.

They seem to know a lot about capitalism. They seem to know a lot about socialism. They seem to like socialism better. Many of us do not agree.

I think the problem many have centers on the obvious inconsistency in being critical of one or two specific groups of wealthy individuals, while conveniently ignoring the greed which exists among other groups of wealthy individuals (who all just happen to be liberals).

In early 1992, facing a struggling economy and an increasingly tough re-election bid, President George H. W. Bush decided to give a talk from the White House about the economy and his jobs plan. The media largely refused to carry it because it was, in their eyes, a campaign event. Which networks do you figure will refuse to carry Mr. Obama's campaign appearance?

I think everyone is being a little too critical of Mr. Obama's choice in nominating Krueger. In view of the unprecedented number of economists who have already bailed on this administration in such a short time, Krueger is likely the only one left willing to accept the job.

Why change the subject?

Back in those days, abortion was also considered a crime. Should we prosecute abortionists because at one time it was considered morally wrong? Perhaps we have simply 'progressed'' to the point where we now apply a different standard for everything from gay marriage to abortion to centralized health mandates to waterboarding.

Getting him out only gets him out. Who replaces him will determine if this is a 'good deal' or not. Obama probably has very little influence there and looking at Egypt, I wouldn't be too confident.