The problem is that there's such a wide range among his party members - there is no single position. Ben Nelson and Ted Kennedy are (were) not the same person!



I see it a little differently. Yes, jobs and the economy is by far the most important thing for him to be talking about - and not just talking about, it's what both parties need to do something about. 20% unemployment is just awful.

So all the pundits say that because he mentioned healthcare reform well into the SOTU, it's moving to the back burner. But I think what he did was start with the short term plan for the economy and move back progressively to the longer term. He started with his jobs proposal (which isn't enough, by the way), then talked about his modest plans for deficit reduction/the spending freeze over the longer term (although again, I think he had other reasons for that Reagan deficit hawk stuff as well), then mentioned healthcare as part of his longer term economic plan - since it's tied to the economy - and then he went from there.

My honest opinion? It's only been one year. We'll see some kind of health insurance reform, some kind of jobs initiative, and things will start going more smoothly as the economy starts to get better.

"The problem is that there's such a wide range among his party members - there is no single position."

And by the way that's why I keep wishing we didn't have the electoral college, which produces only two major parties due to its winner-take-all system. I'd like to be able to vote for more than D vs. R.

I would like to see a third independent party. I am very liberal on social issues but conservative on other issues.

Abortion or gay marriage or legalizing pot, okay, but other than that you'll need to think it through. If you're a "free market" conservative then you're not liberal on social issues.

That's why I say all conservatives are fools, but conservatives who call themselves social liberals are only a little less foolish.

Yes.

It's called being "libertarian."

And despite what certain stubborn members of this message board community might say, it's not the worst thing you can be right now. It's actually pretty good.

Indeed, it's a helluva lot better than being a "Democrat" or a "Republican" in THIS two-party political environment, that's for sure.

I'm not stubborn, I've examined the concept and have strong disagreements with it.

The idea that leaving everything to its own devices is going to result in a better world makes no sense. I may not trust government to act in our best interest all the time, but I sure trust it more than I trust the "free market," in which the goal is to make as much money in as short a time as possible.

If you re-read my post, you'll notice with your keen eye that I never mentioned a political party. But what I did say is obvious. The machine against Obama is extremely well funded, and aggressive.

As is the lobbying machine against health insurance reform. Both parties are at its mercy.

And the SCROTUS just took a big shit on democracy in this country.

And if you had read my post, you would know that I had mentioned the Republican party, as the undeniable key element in our political system that would like to undo Obama.

I'm not sure if you're trying to say there is some other "machine" that is more organized, well-funded or in more direct opposition to his having the Presidency, but if you are, I'd say that's kind of silly (and ask you to let us know who/what you think that is).

In any event, to say that "The machine against Obama is extremely well funded, and aggressive" is about as useful as observing that the sun came up this morning.

"The machine" against George W. Bush was extremely well funded, and aggressive, as well.

As was the one against Bill Clinton, and the one against Gearge H. Bush...

...and the one against...

that's the nature of politics in America.

And FWIW, I can't think of a President that took more of a national lambasting in the press, on Capitol Hill, the opposition party and in public opinion than George W. Bush. That "machine" was WAAAY better funded and WAAAAY more aggressive than ANY "machine" against Obama is, at this point.

Whether or not that's true - and I say it isn't - no president has deserved more of a national lambasting anywhere. Bush was universally reviled around the world.

The guy is a complete POS.