Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for October 02, 2010

At least GT has Obama learning from an expert.

^You don’t cheat on Michelle. She would break him in half. She isn’t a smile and take it type.

Hey Prez, I feel your pain.

Don’t give me any lip…

With power comes responsibility!. Some, such as JFK, were and are STOOOOOPID!. At the inaugural ball, Kennedy walked into the room and asked, “Where are the women?”. JACKASS!

Unfortunately, this is EXACTLY what’s been wrong with him. Too much Clinton compromise.

Raise the ghost of LBJ and borrow Hilary’s guts and (rhymes with) and we may have a much better six years ahead.

Fox had a story on the Lame Duck Dems. Interesting how you are a lame duck before you even LOSE the election in their minds. Or what passes for a Fox mind.

the neo-cons have forgotten they got creamed the last time as much for their arrogance as for their failed policies. Let’s see it they get spit on their faces again this time around from TPers and the Dems.

Warning sign posted in the Oval Office after Clinton departed:

“You can get sex from unprotected aides.”

freeholder, ducks or not, the House of Representatives has been lame for the past year and nine months. With many of them now about to become dead ducks, it’s only natural to speculate what they may do when they have no consequences.

It’s interesting that you chide Fox for thinking about this, but what Pelosi and company do in 2 months with no voter accountability will be a preview as to what Obama would do for 4 years should be be re-elected in 2012.

And what did Bush do for 8 years after being appointed? (Yeah, I know. In the final tally, in the method requested by the Dems, he would have won; but before then, the Supreme Court decided which set of preliminary counts to use, thus “appointed”.) (and yes, I am from Florida)

NeoCon,, You are on a roll today..

I just wish you wouldn’t post your ads for shoes, handbags, etc. in this forum.

I think freeholder’s point is that FOX proclaimed them lame ducks before there was even an election. Unless the fix is in, it’s unclear who will win each election, so it is premature at best to call anyone running a lame duck.

Another point to remember: elections in this country bounce wildly. One year it’s the Repubs, the next it’s the Dems. If either takes too much meaning from a win (or even a landslide sweep), then they are foolish. Just wait till the next election, and it’ll change again.

I realize it is beside-the-point, but todays cartoon from GT is boffo lol!

freeholder, the problem with the Dems is that they’re even more arrogant than the Republicans were. When Bush came into office, he at least tried to work with the Democrats, for example by basically allowing Ted Kennedy to write the education bill known as “No Child Left Behind”. When Obama was elected, the Democrats acted like (and still are acting like) he won with 90% of the vote instead of just about 52%. And I can pretty much guarantee, that had there been a viable third party candidate, or a Republican who wasn’t John McCain, Obama probably would have won with a plurality of the votes instead of a majority, just as Clinton did when he defeated the elder Bush. John McCain lost to Obama with more votes than Bill Clinton had in either of his election wins. Even if you adjusted for the increase in total number of voters in the last election by percentage, McCain still would have had more votes. That’s what the Tea Party folks are up in arms about. When Republicans have the Presidency and the Congress, it’s a major news story if they don’t work with the Democrats (who are the minority party) on pending legislation. When the Dems are in power, you’d swear they were the only party. And of course, when Conservatives or Republicans complain, especially now, they are branded as racists, the party of “no”, sore losers, and everything but citizens with exactly the same rights as Progressives/Liberals/Democrats. I don’t trust most Republicans as far I could throw them, but I trust Democrats even less.

surf, the way I see it, both parties use stupid tactics like that. What would you call a party that attaches unrelated riders to spending bills instead of letting issues stand or fall on their own merits? Ask Harry Reid.