Here's another thing to consider...

Obama's greatest inspiration was not Martin Luther King, Jr., JFK or others... but one of the GOP's greatest examples: Abraham Lincoln.

Like Lincoln - they both served for two years before running for President - they both served in political office in Illnois, but Lincoln was a Representative, not a Senator.

If you ever get the time to read about Obama - not the rightwing accusational stuff - just straight out biographical information, you will see how he (Obama) is trying to emulate Lincoln.

Chosing his opponents to serve on his cabinet (Clinton as Sec of State) Lincoln chose Seward and others who ran against him.

One of Obama's favorite books is "Team of Rivals" by Doris Kearns Goodwin, that describes the Lincoln cabinet and how all these strong willed individuals helped shape the Lincoln administration and pull the US from the brink of collapse. The Civil War almost decimated this country - but Republicans prevailed (quick note - it was the radical Republicans who wanted to abolish slavery the most - some say solely to **** off the south for uprising).

So you have a Democrat President who looks to a GOP icon to help our nation steer away from the "brink of collapse" but on a financial front with two small - but significant - wartime conflicts for added weight.

So ask yourself, do you really want him to fail?

 

lol, let me see if I understand the defintions that the open minded one has just laid down:

conservative = close minded, pessimistic
liberal = open minded, optimistic

Maybe you are more confused than you realized. If you goto Wiki and look up liberalism, half way down the page is the topic "Modern idealogy" that addresses the political context and includes this quote, "In the US, liberalism is usually understood to refer to modern liberalism, as contrasted with conservatism." Click on <modern liberalism> and you will be redirected to social liberalism which includes this quote, "Social liberalism is a political position that supports heavier regulation of the economy and more welfare than other types of liberalism, particularly classical liberalism. Moreover, social liberals consider the accumulation of wealth and power by a small group as a threat to liberty." Anyway you can read it for yourself becasue the defintions you gave are simply wrong.

Liberalism is far more advanced in Europe than it is in America. So in my view, liberals would like the US to be more like Europe. Conservatives want America to preserve her identity and believe that the US is more prosperous than Europe and we should not be using Europe has a model.

The real topic was about media bias, media access, and credentials. I provided some interesting facts about Jeff Immelt which I suggest you read, analyze, and dont dismiss as normal or appropriate. Instead of being "liberal" try being objective. See GE owns patents to wind turbines, and if the Obama mandates green projects, Mr. Immelt stands to make money, something he has failed to due in the free market. He also has control over MSNBC, the network where Olberman and Maddow do nothing but slam conservatives and blow kisses to Obama. If you dont think there is an understanding between Immelt and Obama, then you are naive. And before you say "but look at Bush...look at Jackson" lets look at right and wrong, lets look at the corruption in Washington right now. Do you know who Helen Thomas is? Shes not even a journalist anymore, shes a columnist. Maybe Obama should try to answer some real question from real news people. Helen Thomas asked Obama something that I was wondering, "Do you think the 'so called terrorists' are hiding in Pakistan?" No, Helen, I think the real terrorists are hiding there and thats why our UAVs drop bombs on them. Maybe you should use google to do some fact finding before asking such a doozy. Then Obama calls on the reporter from the Huffington post, a liberal website that began as a place for liberal commentary and is now posing as a legitimate news source - contributors include Rosie O'Donnel. The Huff mixes liberal blogs and commentary with news, and creates confusion between opinion and fact. Once again I direct you to Wiki, read the bottom part about Nancy Raegen. So every president does favor some over others, as you say, and Obam has already made it clear who he favors.

Oh! the purity of Obama, the chosen one. Similar to Lincoln in so many ways. Both served in office in Illinois, holy cow. Both were...ummm, they both appointed political rivals to serve in thier Cabinet, wow, and I thought Hilary would be VP. Both bought land in shady deals that were later investigated ?? If Lincoln rescued our country, Obama will do the same - its destiny! And who am I to question destiny. I am nothing but a pessimistic conservative. Except that I thought we should stay in Iraq, I thought things would get better and they did. I didnt want Bush to fail in Iraq and I dont want Obama to fail now. But social healthcare, welfare, and big government that "works" is not want defines success for me. I want the country to be strong and the people to be strong.

EDIT: Licoln must be rolling over - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOktcnuSDqg

BREAKING NEWS: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/0...merce-nominee/

"Once it became clear after his nomination that Senator Gregg was not going to be supporting some of President Obama’s key economic priorities, it became necessary for Senator Gregg and the Obama administration to part ways,” Mr. Gibbs said."

 

LOL...

I was following along pretty good until you went south into 90Sport territory, mate.

Destiny was never mentioned. What I was referring to is that you have a Constitutional professor who looks to history to guide him and you pop off with that "chosen one" bull. LOL

You act like this is all new stuff.

Cheney calls in the big power brokers of energy to help him come up with an energy program that nearly bankrupt CA.

Haliburton, which Cheney was with before he accepted the VP nod, gets an extremely lucrative multi-billion contract to rebuild Iraq - with no competitive bidding. They just get the contract. Who favored who?

We can point fingers all damn day, mate.

But stop with that Rush Limbaugh whining stuff about the "chosen one". You sound like you're closed minded again spouting talking points.

You have a point about GE. But there are other turbine companies - and I would say, hey! it's Haliburton all over again! If only GE was to get some lucrative billion dollar contract with out the proper competion bidding in place according to GAO policies.

My point about the Lincoln/Obama thing it seems you missed.

But like I said, only time will tell, eh?

 

Btw - the Fox Noise youtube video was just sad and pathetic on a few levels.

The charges were dropped because of lack of evidence. For no other reason.

 

I am now close minded and spouting talking points?

You choose to focus on the sarcasm and ignore the real debate by attacking my character. The "chosen one" reference was in response to the Lincoln comment which I seemed to misinterpret as you comparing the two men. I understand that Lincoln is Obama's hero, but I dont see why this is important and I dont see how the similarities that you described are relevant to current discussion.

The idea that Cheney bankrupted the state of California is something that would require a bit more evidence than you provided, but you state it like its fact.

Do you want to use Cheney as the standard for Obama? Like I said, lets debate the right and wrong of things because that is what matters to me. If we keep lowering the bar, we will have nothing but Cheneys in control.

If GE owns a patent then they will make money as long as turbines are being built, it doesnt really matter who builds them. The piece you did not mention is the connection to MSNBC. Time is already telling us things, you just have to listen.

Any comment on the USS Cole mother, Helen Thomas, the Huffington post?

 

Yea the fox utube video is sad and pathetic. I feel very sad for the mother. I bet you wont get that interview on MSNBC.

And I dont think the charges were dropped because the man is still in custody, but I could be wrong. The man admitted his guilt. SHow me your sources that say that there is a lack of evidence.

EDIT: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...BcWhwD965P6100

Dropped due to executive order by President Obama.

 

Try this - these two - the actual commander of the Uss Cole and the father of one of the killed sailors. At least they went in open minded. Unlike the mother.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...sits-down.html

As for the evidence I misspoke - they dropped the charges "without prejudice" so they can restructure the case...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/02/05/...ing/index.html

 

OK lets pursue this digression. The President decided to delay this case for atleast four months. Few people will argue that this man is guilty, and I still contend that he took credit for the attack. Maybe you dont care about that womans feelings, but I do. Her son was one of 17 men killed on the ship and she has every right to be upset. Calling her close minded is completely disrespectful. Plus commander Lippold wasnt exactly praising Obama's choice. Lippold said that Obama should have consulted the families first and he still has concerns about how things will proceed in the future.

The way I see it - Obama has deeply saddened this lady in order to fill a political promise to the left to close the prison ASAP.

 

Ok - but I'm sorry. You're sounding like a bleedheart liberal...

This woman's feelings are of national importance? Tell that to Barbara Cummings, the gal that ruined her life as she camped outside Bush's Texas ranch demanding an end to the Iraq war - she lost her son there.

Git-Mo is wrong. Honestly, I'm all for prosecuting the wicked, but we can't do what has been going on there, mate.

Have you ever read the Bill of Rights? It doesn't just apply to Americans - it says all men are created equal and as Americans we will treat all men in such fashion. In American hands we treat prisoners with the same rights as outlined in the UCMJ - but at Git-Mo even that's been suspended.

What does it mean to be an American - proudly supporting our Constitutional rights and beliefs only to refuse them to others under our watch? It means nothing. They are empty words and makes us no better than what they would do to us.

Eye for an eye? Maybe - but done right. Wartime courts are not bogged down by legal process that civilians enjoy. It's much swifter, but still just.

This woman wanted attention and got it from Fox Noise. Maybe she should have attended the meeting first and then pissed and moaned afterwards. But like all reactionaries she makes her judgements first before hearing the motives. You can equate her to the loon woman (who may still be camped outside W's ranch).

Disrespect? Sorry, I have no respect for anyone - including that loon - to grab attention in such manner. No one wants this war - me included, we NEVER should have gone into Iraq (Afghanistan - hell, yes, Osama was hiding there), but I don't respect that loon's action in trying to stop the war.

Wrong tactic on both counts, mate.

 

The two cases have some distinct differences. The 'loon' wanted the war to stop because her son had died. Her sons death turned her into a pacifist. She travelled the country and constantly sought media attention for her cause. At the same time, she was insulting the mission of her son, which he gave his life for. Once again you are making loose comparisons. The mother of the USS Cole victim was simply upset that Obamas executive order was delaying the prosecution of the man who killed her son. You might call that "pissing and moaning" but I find those words to be disrespectful. This woman voted for Obama and bought into his message of hope. Her reward - a delay of trial of her sons murderer. And maybe delaying all of the cases before the prison is closed was the right thing to do, I dont know, but delaying this trial was not necessary for the closure of Gitmo a year or so from now. And maybe delaying the trial was still the right thing to do, I dont know, but the situation was mishandled. The woman learned that the charges were dropped the day before she was invited to the white house. She was obviously emotionally strained at the time, and she responded emotionally as could be expected. You can downplay those emotions and call her reactionary, but I wont. The article that you sight has specific quotes from the commander of the USS Cole that say the situation was mishandled because the families should have been spoken to before the annoucement that the charges were dropped. He also said that he was still concerned about things moving forward. If the commander had these uneasy feelings, I can only imagine how this woman might have felt. And to compare this one interview to the campaign of Ms. cummings is absurd. To think that this woman wants anything more than justice for her sons killer is a large leap of logic. I applaud Fox News for getting one side of the story that you will not hear anywhere else.