I'm not clear on why it would send up a red flag. A red flag about what?

I think some members of Congress are able to refrain from showing bias or favoritism. Asking for an autograph has nothing to do with that.

I definitely don't think members of Congress should act like drooling tweens who just saw the Jonas brothers though.

I'm guessing because the Senate normally does not sit in that chamber.

Didn't IndyMac, WaMu, Lehman fail in September or October? To me, it just seems that Obama is in the right place at the wrong time.

Every decision that he has made has led to even less investor confidence... namely the socialization of our banking system. He has already said that he's going to double the deficit THIS year. Investors do not like his policies at all, bottom line. The drop right after his election is undeniable.

Or the wrong place at the wrong time depending on how you voted. ;)

I tend to agree with you that Obama's being assigned blame for stuff that's mainly beyond his control and that some of the continuing economic drop is fall-out from policy, government activity, general failure to provide oversight, general willingness to regulate in the wrong way (take your pick) from before he was even in the Senate.

But, I don't think the stimulus bill was all that great and at some point when things don't start rebounding, Obama's going to own this one. (I'm oversimplifying by saying merely "stimulus bill". We could include all the proposed funding and regulation he's had a hand in as well and the strings attached to previous bailout funds that aren't proving popular.)

The fact that it's a Democratically controlled Congress with key long-term Democratic legislators who were players in some of the crisis areas, even when the Republicans were in control, might kind of at least double the pressure. There's no place to shift the blame in the public mind.

(I'm not really saying that I think Democrats are more responsible for the present situation, but at some point, especially considering everything that Bush was blamed for and the pattern that's established, the public is going to look to blame.)

Admittedly, I'm really upset by the amount of unfair blame and criticism that President Bush received while in office. Perhaps thats why I am going to blame everything that happens for the next eight years on Barack Obama.

Eight years?

I would think it will be hard to get reelected if things haven't picked up pretty substantially.

Now, the GOP has to find someone to run by then who actually appeals to a lot of people. But, if things don't pick up, I can see people wanting to give a business friendly guy a try.

I thought I remember you not liking Bush too much when he was in office? Or am I confusing you with another poster?

Then they need to get a muzzle on the CPAC crowd: CPAC After Party

I hope you're kidding when you say this because this is kind of ridiculous.

Bush didn't get as much criticism and blame as he deserved to get for his policies and decisions while he was in office.

I think people really need to just give Obama and this new administration time to fix the mess that was created. While I definitely believe God put him in office, I realize that this kind of thing won't be fixed overnight. And I think people also need to realize that this administration isn't perfect. Mistakes will be made. However, it is extremely unfair for people to be so judgmental about this administration when those same people tolerated an administration that basically stomped all over the constitutional rights of people in this country.

Have any of you been following what's happening with the EU over the last week or so? It is possible the EU might sever. They are in even worse shape than we are right now, and Gordon Brown is heading here to address OUR government tomorrow night. Word is that he might be suggesting the stimulus passed by congress isn't big enough, and that the EU will be looking to the U.S. to essentially bail them out. Some Internet chatter even suggests it's possible the UK could be taken over by U.S. rule if the EU should falter; I think that's maybe a little nutty, but nevertheless, it's chatter.

I'm not sure a political party can really muzzle anybody, especially people not directly affiliated or employed by the party and not speaking at a party event. But I agree that they should do more to keep idiots out of the spotlight when they can.

I wasn't really interested in CPAC, especially what Rush or Ann Coulter had to say and expected to find them as irritating as always.

But what I found really odd about that clip was how the Daily Show commentary seems to misrepresent most of what was said. There was no call for the destruction of an American city, simply the acknowledgment that it might be the threat posed by Iran. Kerry was the the only veteran mocked and I suspect the laughter had very little to do with his veteran status. The comment about the founding fathers and guns was pretty clearly about the 2nd amendment to me.

(Rush is going to talk crazy and it's totally open season on him as far as I'm concerned. I'd prefer a direct renouncing by Steele rather than the backtracking today.)

As I've said before, I don't really find most of the Daily Show funny. I think the comedy bible idea was, but after that it's just John Stewart being smug and not particularly witty.

MLK, Jr.?

"That ain't your real hair. Just stop it! You just go too far with the jokes." ~ Eddie Murphy Nutty Professor