Sometimes only the opposition party can get something passed – no way welfare reform passes under a Republican president. Clinton already had welfare reform when he was governor of Arkansas. Got a reception at the White House with Reagan because of it.

I have no idea what your “short sighted” comment means. I’m pretty sure I’m not the reason we have Obama.

- Voted against the stimulus package.
- Voted against Geithner’s confirmation.
- Voted against Sotomayor’s confirmation.
- Publicly opposed Obama’s healthcare plan.

That’s just what I can think of on the spot. I can’t agree that he’s in favor of almost everything Obama is doing. Yes, he wants healthcare reform, but it’s a conservative package that includes encouraging competition and tort reform – it has the support of the Heritage Foundation, for one.

Now I do agree with the clarity issue, that you could have a more conservative Republican in the White House to truly make the case against the welfare state and central government. But it is a risk right now to have Obama and his Dem congress greatly increase the size of the state, particularly in health care, when there’s no history of the state ever shrinking, the one exception being welfare reform (there’s that word again), which required a Democratic president to get it passed.

On foreign policy, McCain differs from Obama in almost way. This is where the differences are going to play out the most historically, whatever one’s thoughts on those differences.

Would we be better of domestically with Obama if his incompetence leads to a conservative win?

The point is that John McCain was in favor of almost everything Obama is doing. McCain would have also pushed for cap and trade and was also talking about healthcare “reform”. The problem is that a Republican president neutralizes any effective resistance to this stuff.

Obama has, in fact, done the country a great favor: he’s offered us clarity — he’s made it clear that the alternative Americans face is that either: 1) We continue the march into undiluted socialism/fascism with the concurrent loss of all our freedoms and indvidual rights and the probable economic collapse of our society — OR — 2) We reject socialism/fascism, return to capitalism, and begin the process of figuring out how to dismantle he welfare state.

Obama’s presidency has made this alternative clear for the first time in years. Republicans like Bush — who claim to be supporters of capitalism and limited government, but who always expand the welfare-state and increase the size of government — serve only to confuse the people by making it seem that the welfare state and capitalism are compatible. The are not, and the only hope for American is for Americans to finally grasp this point.

It’s either/or — either the welfare state goes or America as we have known it will be dead and gone. That’s our choice — and fortunately, I don’t think Americans are ready to surrender their freedoms and prosperity.

Let’s just run with “all will be somewhat better with the world” since there are serious threats outside of Iran also. Probability that Israel takes action in the next 6 months is 70%. Why? Because there is no point in waiting.

Recommendation: Go to cash and defense stocks.

The Euros were given years of chances by GWB and they accomplished NOTHING. That’s exactly what they will accomplish now. For the next 4 years the only state with real skin in the game is Israel. If they don’t do it then no one will.

I have watched and listened to Beck. I understand what his reasoning was, and he still wrong. The truth is he can not make up his mind if he is a Paulbot, a conservative, a populist or a libertarian. He has managed to call Teddy Roosevelt a thug and he said Bush should be impeached either for the Patriot Act or the borders, depending on whatever particular rant he is on in any given day.

I think he is an entertainer who is out to make money and make a name for himself.