Its utterly amazing... wrote on Nov 8, 2008 2:08 AM:...that we allow people to vote, even though they have such little understanding, or gross misunderstanding of government!

James Langford, unfortunately, is not alone in believing, "...[an]election is the people, by majority opinion, deciding what their constitution will contain."

Here's a little refresher course in Civics 101. Majority opinion by voters does NOT decide what the constitution ultimately contains. The courts still have to decide if the will expressed by the people is legal.

Without this, one of the "checks and balances" (ring a bell, James), the majority could ammend the constitution to force the sterilization of green eyed people, impose prison sentences for people with curly hair, or withhold voting rights for people who's grandparents came from Eastern Europe.

The wonderful thing about this country, and this state, is that we have a system that prevents those who propose violating the rights of others in the name of majority rule,

James, these are the people who are more apt to, as you say, ..."make a mockery of the way this state is governed."

Chuck wrote on Nov 8, 2008 4:07 AM:<<<Marriage now protected, thanks to bigotry<<<<
I find it hypocritical that the gay racketeers have ripped mother and father out of the Callyforneya vocabulary, yet want the term marriage to apply to whatever they do

ad nauseam wrote on Nov 8, 2008 4:43 AM:The mockery of the way this state is governed, as James Langford puts it, is that with a 50%+1 vote, the California Constitution can be fundamentally altered. Want to raise taxes? Not so fast, two-thirds vote required. Change our governing document? A bare majority. It’s absurd.
So I suppose that in two years another proposition will be put on the ballot, because it only takes a ridiculously small amount of petition signatures, to repeal the Prop. 8 amendment. If that one fails or passes, in another two years we’ll do it all over again.
The Prop. 4 Parental Notification initiative is a case in point. They just won't take no for an answer.
If I proposed a Constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds vote to amend the Constitution the irony would be that it would only take 50%+1 to do so.

Alf wrote on Nov 8, 2008 5:23 AM:The letter from Thomas Calabrese contained a few truths -
"they [Republicans] lost the presidential election and other seats in Congress because they just became too arrogantly complacent about their egregious misconduct and betrayal of the public trust."
"The Democrat and Republican parties basically have one thing in common: They are both corrupt and incompetent."

My biggest objections to the Republican ticket were -
1) McCain, aka McGWB, was intent on "staying the course" in Iraq, that he would fight there until we "won", something that no one has defined WITH ANY CONSISTANCY. How can one achieve an objective when that objective keeps changing? It's like chasing the end of a rainbow.
2) Palin, "a heartbeat away" from being President, with her stances on religion, abortion, etc. AND Iraq being "a task that is from God" as well as her secessionist "first dude".

My biggest objection to the Democratic ticket was that they are as corrupt as the Republicans, they simply have not mucked things up as bad. YET.

It is no secret that I voted for no labeled party at all, instead, I voted for Ron Paul, as is my right.
Now that Obama is President-elect, I can start using the upper case "P" for President until he proves unworthy of it, as GWB proved himself to be well over 7 years ago.
Regards, Alf.

TFB wrote on Nov 8, 2008 5:42 AM:Phyllis Hassinger's sour grapes letter distorts the reality of Proposition 4 but, since that is water under the bridge and these bullies who want to deny girls their rights have failed in their third straight attempt to ram this down the expensive throats of Californians (three strikes and YOU ARE OUTTAHERE), I'm not going to rub her nose in this humiliating defeat, no matter how much she deserves it.
I am going to call her out on a couple of additional absurd statements:
A proposition trying to change the law failed. It FAILED. So nothing has changed. There is no change in our statutory rape laws and men who abuse girls can be and will continue to be prosecuted. Nothing in the law changed!
And the reference to "Planned Parenthood" getting "richer" is both false and absurd.
Most Planned Parenthood facilities do not provide abortions. They provide comprehensive reproductive services and counseling. In the case of abortions, if after a woman has been provided comprehensive information about all options, she decides that abortion is the right choice for her situation, she is referred to an outside provider who can handle such services. Planned Parenthood rarely gets anything for this and is a non-profit foundation funded primarily through donations and grants.

And do the doctors who perform services get paid for their services? Not much. It is hardly a lucrative procedure. If Hassinger is really concerned about the ghastly threat of physicians' remuneration, she should go after those greedy heart specialists. Or plastic surgeons.

Interesting to note wrote on Nov 8, 2008 5:49 AM:According to the exit polls, 70% of African-Americans voted in favor of Prop 8, probably providing the margin of victory. I would guess that at least 70% of that 70% voted for Obama.
One would think that they would know a little about the concept of unequal treatment and the denial of basic civil rights.
In an election where the big question was would Americans put aside underlying prejudices and vote for a black candidate, the fact that the one group affected the most by this would, in turn, vote their prejudices against another minority is telling.
The dissecting of the vote on Prop 8 shows that the demand for equality and civil rights for all, from some quarters, is a mile wide and an inch deep.

jvc wrote on Nov 8, 2008 6:01 AM:Why is it that to help the underclass and poor with our tax dollar is considered socialism? But, to help the elite of society is not considered
socialism!This is a fault of the compassionate conservative ideology!

Kevin wrote on Nov 8, 2008 6:13 AM:To those that supported proposition 8 and wrote a letter above:

I am straight (hetro sexual). I did not make a choice to be that way, it just happened. Much like a homosexual does not make a choice to be 'gay'. Anyone who thinks that the vast majority of homosexuals made a choice to be that way just needs to read more about it. And don't bother reading church literature because it is close minded nonsense on this issue. I'm ashamed and disgusted by the results of the election. From a more selfish perspective perhaps all of the gays will just leave the state and pay their taxes elsewhere. I suspect the demographic does better financially than most of the folks that voted yes on 8. California will be worse off because of this vote unless a judge steps forward and does the right thing.

PROPHET wrote on Nov 8, 2008 6:41 AM:The pick 3 lottery number in Illinois election night was 666.

The Obama supporters are hiding the shame they are getting after voting for the wrong man!

NO CHANGE WILL BE GIVEN EXCEPT:

ECONOMY WILL JUST GET WORSE

NO NEW IDEA

NOTHING NEW CAN CHANGE THE CURRENT CRISIS

AND THIS IS THE FACT THAT THEY HIDE BY USING THE LIBERAL MEDIA TO SAY SOMETHING SUCH AS ATTACKING SARAH PALIN LEFT AND RIGHT. WOW, ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE TRULY TRASH AND LOSERS!

PROPHET wrote on Nov 8, 2008 6:43 AM:READ WHAT OBAMA TOLD ALL AMERICA:

“But the president-elect also warned of a tough road ahead during his first press conference since Election Day, held in Chicago just minutes after meeting with a team of top economic advisers.

“It is not going to be quick. It is not going to be easy for us to dig ourselves out of the hole that we are in,” Obama said. “But America is a strong and resilient country, and I know we will succeed.”

Obama stressed the need to extend unemployment benefits, stimulate job growth and reduce the number of foreclosures, and he pressed for Congress to pass a new stimulus package “sooner rather than later.”

“If it does not get done in the lame duck session, it will be the first thing I get done as president of the United States,” Obama said. ”

OBAMA SUPPORTERS: YOUR MAN IS ADMITTING THAT ALL THOSE CHANGE THAT HE PROMISED IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN…. NOT AT ALL!!!!

IT WAS SMOOTH TALK AND SWEET LIES THAT YOU STUPID BRAINLESS MYOPIC BLIND FOLLOWERS GOT DECEIVED!!!!

NOW YOU BETTER FIX THE PROBLEM RIGHT NOW!!!!

Sorry Mr Langford wrote on Nov 8, 2008 6:44 AM:As often has to be posted here, the US is NOT a democracy. While he is right that in California, a simple majority can alter the state constitution, fact of the matter is that when one part of the constitution contradicts another, it's off to court we go. That's what the people voted for on Prop 8, to go to court about the civil rights of homosexuals. In time, this issue will go to the federal courts and be decided there, on the federal level, as it should be. Rights of gays include things beyond the states. For example, someone here from another country can marry an American and become a legal resident, but only if she is straight. No, Mr Langford, majority does NOT rule. Back home in the South, the majority wanted Blacks to be second class citizens. The courts overruled you. The courts, eventually, will do the same for gays. The US is not ruled by the mob, thank goodness, but by that wondrous document, the Constitution, and by the awe-inspiring values it contains.

PROPHET wrote on Nov 8, 2008 6:44 AM:all these liberal medias
ABC
NBC
CBS
MSNBC
CNN
Newsweek
AP
Reuters
Time
NYT’s
WaPo
Huffington
D Kos.

WE SHOULD BOYCOTT!!!!! FOR THEY ARE A BUNCH OF LIARS!

ONLY FOXNEWS STOOD WITH WHAT IS RIGHT!!!!!

Greencinitan wrote on Nov 8, 2008 6:45 AM:My excitement, relief, and hopefulness at the election of an intelligent, thoughtful, hard-working man of integrity to the US Presidency is tempered only by my disappointment that we were unable to elect a similarly honorable, hard-working, intelligent man to serve beside him in the Congress representing the 50th Congressional District of California, Nick Leibham. This was Nick's first run for office and I hope it will not be his last. He came from total obscurity to capture 46% of the vote in a district where Democratic registration is at about 31%. Not bad. But not good enough. He ran a clean, grassroots campaign. Brian Bilbray hid from him and refused to debate until almost the last week of the campaign. Nick kept on working hard so he could help bring an end to the war in Iraq, reinvestment in our domestic economy, support for education and health care, a cleaner environment and an clean energy policy that supports national security and economic growth. I sincerely hope this is not the last we hear of this inspiring, articulate, and passionate public servant.

Wanda wrote on Nov 8, 2008 7:02 AM:Was refreshing to read Gene Gerow's thoughtful, upbeat letter.

Mackeral wrote on Nov 8, 2008 7:04 AM:Only 3 years and 361 days to go to get our USA back

Mackeral wrote on Nov 8, 2008 7:11 AM:How can Barach Obama put his hand on the Bible and swear to support and defend the Constitution. When he has stated that our Constitution is fundamentally flawed. Can anyone answer my question?

Joe the Moonshiner wrote on Nov 8, 2008 7:15 AM:James Langford's letter says there's a law against marrying your sister in South Carolina. What kind of pantywaist liberal law is that?

Obvious wrote on Nov 8, 2008 7:20 AM:Some of the posters yesterday are correct. If Obama does anything whatsoever that is what politicians and Presidents have done before, then obviously all his talk about "change" was a lie. Sad, but this is what we're in for. They'll say, "You guys bashed Bush", but the only real test is: is the criticism based on facts or just malice? That's always the test. IMHO most Bush-bashers passed this test. Judging from the campaign, so far, the Obama-bashers certainly flunk. But we'll see. When Clinton went astray, in behavior or policies, I had no difficulty bashing him, and I'll do the same with Obama. That's how fact-based criticism works.

Republicans lost wrote on Nov 8, 2008 7:27 AM:Republicans lost the election because of their rejection of Bush's and McCain's immigration plans of a few years ago.

Hispanics are a conservative block of voters. Most of them would vote with Republicans if the GOP showed an inch of sensitivity towards Hispanic issues. But when the base rebuked its leaders for doing this, the deal was sealed.

Until Republicans wake up and realize that if they want to be anything but a white, regional, rural political party, they need to build a coalition with Hispanics and other socially conservative minorities, stick a fork in 'em, the GOP is done.

Hi Mackeral wrote on Nov 8, 2008 7:30 AM:I don't remember when Obama stated that our Constitution is fundamentally flawed. When was that?

PROPHET BUSH wrote on Nov 8, 2008 7:32 AM:I guess Prophet would rather have a President like Mr. Bush who does not think things through, decides what the best facts are, and sticks with bad decisions no matter what the situation on the ground is. I'm glad Prophet is not the decider!

Voted No wrote on Nov 8, 2008 7:43 AM:Yes on 8 voters enjoy your victory now, it will be short lived. And so will your hatred.

Get them some help wrote on Nov 8, 2008 7:45 AM:Geez, Prophet and Mackeral aren't taking this election too well, are they? They need to get some help. The guy is still two months from being sworn in and for these two, the world is already ending. One of the more amusing aspects of this is that they are quick to point out how, under Obama's lies, things really won't change...and even this is terrible if it's Obama at the helm. What can you expect, though? For months, Palin, McCain and the fair and balanced boys hammered poor Mackeral and Prophet with exaggerations and lies about Obama. He's a Muslim. He's a terrorist. He's a socialist. He's a Black liberationist. You name it. So it's no wonder that, having believed all this junk, that they are terrified that the Black nationalist, socialist, terrorist, Muslim is now in charge of the nation. McCain tried, ineptly, to tell his audience when they fiercely booed Obama's name, that McCain had just been kidding about all that stuff, that it was just election-talk (i.e., lies to win votes). Psst: Mackeral/Prophet: he's not what you think. You were lied to for the sake of winning your votes. It's not as bad they told you it would be. Relax. At least give it a chance. We liberals even gave Bush that chance, and we could see he was an idiot.

TFB wrote on Nov 8, 2008 7:48 AM:Resubmission of skipped blog

Phyllis Hassinger's sour grapes letter distorts the reality of Proposition 4 but, since that is water under the bridge and these bullies who want to deny girls their rights have failed in their third straight attempt to ram this down the expensive throats of Californians (three strikes and YOU ARE OUTTAHERE), I'm not going to rub her nose in this humiliating defeat, no matter how much she deserves it.
I am going to call her out on a couple of additional absurd statements:
A proposition trying to change the law failed. It FAILED. So nothing has changed. There is no change in our statutory rape laws and men who abuse girls can be and will continue to be prosecuted. Nothing in the law changed!
And the reference to "Planned Parenthood" getting "richer" is both false and absurd.
Most Planned Parenthood facilities do not provide abortions. They provide comprehensive reproductive services and counseling. In the case of abortions, if after a woman has been provided comprehensive information about all options, she decides that abortion is the right choice for her situation, she is referred to an outside provider who can handle such services. Planned Parenthood rarely gets anything for this and is a non-profit foundation funded primarily through donations and grants.

And do the doctors who perform services get paid for their services? Not much. It is hardly a lucrative procedure. If Hassinger is really concerned about the ghastly threat of physicians' remuneration, she should go after those greedy heart specialists. Or plastic surgeons.

Wanda wrote on Nov 8, 2008 7:56 AM:PROPHET, at 6:44 AM, provided a copious list of "all these liberal medias" to boycot. Once again, journalists are not responsible for creating the news any more than meteorologists are responsible for creating the weather. A rainy day is a rainy day, no matter how you try to spin it.

SHOUTING INSIPED DRIVEL DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE!

Bob wrote on Nov 8, 2008 8:06 AM:Mackeral is back again today, still trying to make the transition from 32 years in the military to thinking for himself. Though I can understand how this might be difficult, it can't be as hard as Mackeral makes it look.

to James others wrote on Nov 8, 2008 8:07 AM:Redneck or not same rules here: MONOGAMY, no family intermarriage, etc.

The problem is the church/religion is the special interest group. Churches spent much money (let us see how long churches remain 'not-for-profit') to create a second tier of citizenship.

We had plenty of that: women were not allowed to vote, those of various colors were not allowed to vote, those of various colors were not allowed to marry others, etc.

Our government, Constitution, and judges are part of the process of making certain that the majority does not harm the minority.

Our government and laws are based on the Constitution not the bible. There is no state church.

A two tiered system hurts all of us. Homosexuals are not a special interest group; they pay taxes, etc. and do not have all the rights that a 'straight' person has. They are wired differently (hardware); they are not wired like others (software).

A 'straight' person does not make a choice. Neither does the homosexual. It is their human makeup.

Same sex marriage will do no harm to anyone.

Monogamy, not with relatives, not with other forms of life that very often you straight people write about; how cruel and ignorant you are.

You seem to be worried about your own sexuality.

Approx 50% of straight marriages fail.
What happens to the children of those marriages.

Homosexuals do have children: adoption and other medically approved ways.

You bring up children: are you going to rally for governmental pre-marriage tests and approval to make sure couples can have children. To make certain that the male adult has enough sperms.

This is a church bible religious battle.

Many churches open their arms to those that are wired differently.

The vote was close.

In another decade or so, they will have all their civil rights. Homosexuals are humans.

They are our daughters and sons; they are part of our families. Stop your fear.

Karl wrote on Nov 8, 2008 8:08 AM:Right on Thomas Calabrese. I wish to hell that there where millions more people like you that see through the smoke.

Ms M wrote on Nov 8, 2008 8:12 AM:Mackeral
[-] wrote on Nov 8, 2008 7:04 AM:...did you know that 64% of the cons want Palin in 2012. You folks are off to a great start!

Bob wrote on Nov 8, 2008 8:14 AM:PROPHET, at 6:44 AM, shouts:

"ONLY FOXNEWS STOOD WITH WHAT IS RIGHT!!!!!"

Just curious, how do you keep from bumping into things with your head stuck where it is?

One answer and one question wrote on Nov 8, 2008 8:16 AM:In a discussion years ago, Obama said there were fundamental flaws in the original language of the Constitution. Such as counting blacks as two-thirds of a person, allowing slavery and not allowing women the right to vote.
Does Mackeral disagree?

Karl wrote on Nov 8, 2008 8:19 AM:Alf, with all due respect, I will always use the upper case "P" out of respect for the office. I will also always use upper case "R" and "D" not out of respect for the party's but out of hope that one day I will again respect the persons that put the party names in front of theirs. That day will come when our lawmakers put me and everyone else in this Country above greed and power.

Ms M wrote on Nov 8, 2008 8:22 AM:PROPHET
[-] wrote on Nov 8, 2008 6:44 AM:...ONLY FOXNEWS STOOD WITH WHAT IS RIGHT!!!!!...See PROPHET, that's the problem - TURN OFF THE TV!

Karl wrote on Nov 8, 2008 8:24 AM:Ms. M, why do you continue to confuse Conservatives with Republicans? The current boobs that are running the Republican party are far from Conservative. I'd call them Liberal Lite with no kahonies.

You betcha also wrote on Nov 8, 2008 8:37 AM:Whoa, Prophet, who are the ones attacking Palin now? Why, it's the Republicans from the McCain camp. As dutifully reported by Carl Cameron of Fox News.
Can't blame Democrats and the liberal media for that.
Although the Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast line is gold, with Republicans sources reported by Fox News it's oh for two on the credibility scorecard.
The thing is, Palin, with her own mouth, put herself in the position of Americans believing almost anything negative said about her.

Roger wrote on Nov 8, 2008 8:42 AM:PROPHET, at 6:43 AM, requests:

"NOW YOU BETTER FIX IT RIGHT NOW!!!!"

Perhaps we should wait until January 20.

Karl wrote on Nov 8, 2008 8:46 AM:Wanda @ 7:56 AM

Once again Wanda, the media may not create the news but they certainly recreate it in their own image. They also have the power (which they use) of not reporting all pertinent facts.

Wanda wrote on Nov 8, 2008 8:47 AM:I suspect Karl, at 8:24 AM, is on to something. I had suspected all along that George W. Bush was not a student of Edmund Burke :)

Ms M wrote on Nov 8, 2008 8:51 AM:Karl
[-] wrote on Nov 8, 2008 8:24 AM:...no Karl, they are cons - cons that may have lost their way - but they are still cons!

Wanda wrote on Nov 8, 2008 8:59 AM:Karl, at 8:46 AM, is right.

My 7:56 AM post was in response to PROPHET's 6:44 AM post: "ONLY FOXNEWS STOOD WITH WHAT IS RIGHT!!!!!"

If anybody lies by omission, it's Faux News.

Troy wrote on Nov 8, 2008 9:00 AM:An open letter to Obama supporters and also Obama critics:

I am a independent swing voter who voted for Obama. I also voted for Reagan AND Clinton so the term "wingnut" would not apply to me. I DID NOT vote for Bush. People like me are who decides elections. Obama won this election because people like me voted for him. However, I have noticed quite a bit of cockiness coming from the left following Obamas victory and it turns me sour. Do not think that I will not turn on him in 2012 should he fail to live up to his promise. I felt we needed change and hated Bush but I struggled to decide which candidate to vote for as I know the democrats arent the answer either. I finally ended up deciding to give Obama a chance and decided on him as my choice. However, I do not want to hear excuses for 4 years about how the problem is much worse than we thought. I want results and I want bi- partisanship as promised. Losing the swing vote would be devestating to Obamas chance of re-election so his support isnt etched in stone by any means. I will take a wait and see approach as to whether his tax plan raises or lowers my tax rate. I have heard both sides make claims but I will wait and see. Should Obama do as he promises, I will have no problem voting for him a second time. But if he fails, and blames it on Bush and company, I will turn on him. He was brought in to fix the mess and not be a demogogue that craves power. Fannie & Freddie werent Bush policies and their collapse just happened to have occured on his watch after actions were made by his predecessors to loosen standards for loans. I do not subscribe to the belief that everything that happens on a presidents "watch" is his fault as the established beauracracy has a life of its own beyond the presidents control. We do not elect a security guard so the term "on his watch" will apply to Obama just like it did Bush. He came in citing Bushs policies and held Bush accountable and I will do the same to Obama as this crisis is much too critical to be politicized.

I want him to win the war and not pull out until the job is done.

I want him to jump start the economy.

I want him to restore confidence in the banking industry and stock market

I want him to lower my taxes and give me more earning power

I want him to hold his own administration accountable for their actions.

I want him to own up to his mistakes when he makes them.

I DO NOT want him to negotiate with terrorists.

The art of diplomacy involves making concessions and I cant see anything that he can concede to them other than Israel. I am Jewish and I will not tolerate that so I hope he doesnt give rogue states legitimacy by sitting down with them. There is nothing to discuss with them.

I DO NOT want him to provide a government bailout solution for every mess we have in America.

I DO NOT want him to beat up on business.

I DO NOT want socialism.

Obama will have to work with Congress on both sides if he is to keep people like me from turning on him in 2012. His fate in 2012 will depend on how he plays his hand and what he gets done. Swing voters like me are watching his every move.

I want results and not rhetoric and blame.

If he gets results, I will vote for him again.

If he attempts to make us a socialist country, I will turn on him.

I will give him a 2 year honeymoon but after that, its his country and I will hold him accountable for the current state of the nation at that time.

This should give comfort to both sides as the only way I will vote for him again is if America wins.

I dont want blame or excuses.

America must come first if hes to continue getting my support as I voted for him with an eye toward skepticism.

Time will tell.

OBAMAPREZ wrote on Nov 8, 2008 9:02 AM:From the blogger formerly known as OBAMACAN
("can" is a great word loaded with POSSIBILITY,
but now we graduate from POSSIBILITY to REALITY.)

I watched PRESIDENT ELECT OBAMA's first post-election news conference.
How inspiring to see him lined up with a cast of economic experts including history's most successful Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker (Carter and Reagan), William Donaldson (SEC Chairman under Bush) and numerous high-profile corporate CEO's from successful corporations (Xerox, Time Warner, Google) and, joining the conference by phone, the most successful capitalist of all time, Democrat Warren Buffet.

What a relief to know that, once again, the grownups are in charge.

Debbie wrote on Nov 8, 2008 9:11 AM:I find it hillarious that Obama, who wants to have “wealth” start from the ground up( trickle-up economics), is talking to CEOs and billionaires to get a handle on the economy. According to his ideals, shouldn’t he be consulting with the poor???

Bill wrote on Nov 8, 2008 9:16 AM:Marraige is not a civil right.

I voted against Prop 8 but its not a civil right.

The correct legal argument for the gay marraige issue isnt on civil rights but rather unequal treatment under the law. The two are not the same but if the gays argue it on civil rights grounds, then they will lose that one in court. All benefits of marraige can be utilized in a civil union so there are no rights being denied to anyone.

However, not getting full faith and credit in all 50 states is a discriminating element that must be remedied.

Arguing civil rights violations wont get that done.

Arguing it based on the 14th ammendment will IMO.

The answer will lie in strengthening the domestic partnership laws to gain full faith and credit in all 50 states.

That way the church can maintain its "marraige" label and the discriminating elements of unequal treatment will be removed.

That is the only viable solution to this complex issue.

One has a right to be gay in America.

No on Hussein wrote on Nov 8, 2008 9:18 AM:I listened to the speech and all I heard was a lot of stuttering and stammering. He read every word he said. Bush may have mispronounced a few words, but he did not use notes and did not stutter and stammer. Obama had a hard time answering the questions because he did not have notes to tell him what to say, so he skirted the issues. What a sorry excuse for a president.

Obama slips in reference to seance by Nancy Reagan

WASHINGTON (AP) — In his preparation to become president, Barack Obama said Friday that he has had discussions with all former presidents — or almost all of them.

“I’ve spoken to all of them that are living,” the president-elect said in a lighter moment during his first press conference since his victory.

“I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any seances,” he joked.

It actually wasn’t Nancy Reagan who was linked to conversations with the dead; it was Obama’s top Democratic challenger for the presidency, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.

In either case, use of the word “seance” might be overstated.

Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer to help set her husband’s schedule, wrote former White House chief of staff Donald T. Regan. The revelation created a furor and President Reagan even broke with his policy of not commenting on books by former White House staffers. “No policy or decision in my mind has ever been influenced by astrology,” Reagan said.

In his book “The Choice,” Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward described how Clinton consulted with a spiritual adviser who led her through imaginary conversations with her personal hero, Eleanor Roosevelt. Newsweek magazine, which was promoting the book, characterized the visits as “seances,” a term that White House officials quickly tried to squelch.

“These were people who were helping her laugh, helping her think,” said Neel Lattimore, the first lady’s spokesman. “These were not seances.”

Bob wrote on Nov 8, 2008 9:18 AM:While Karl, at 8:46 AM, has a valid point, Wanda was responding to PROPHET, at 6:44 AM, who, apparently, only watches Fox News (surprise!) because only Fox News tells him what he wants to hear.

As for your observation: "They have the power (which they use) of not reporting all pertinent facts.", what better example than Fox News?

Bill wrote on Nov 8, 2008 9:19 AM:Am I the only one who sees the irony in the fact that Californians allegedly demanded "change" and then re-elected every last incumbent to the legislature?

How is that change?

If you want change then shop at the 99 cent store.

Roger wrote on Nov 8, 2008 9:27 AM:Yes, Karl, at 8:46 AM, the media does put their own spin on news stories (none more than Faux News) but going back to PROPHET's 6:44 AM list of news sources to avoid, I suspect it's the "pertinent facts" he's trying to avoid, not the spin.

Bob wrote on Nov 8, 2008 9:47 AM:Yea, Debbie, at 9:11 AM, I really expected him to ask for advice from Joe the Plumber too.

He's an elitest!

Kevin heres lookin at you kid wrote on Nov 8, 2008 9:56 AM:I’m told that homosexuality is a natural, genetic, psychological condition where an individual is sexually attracted to those of the same gender. Okay, let’s accept that.

Then let’s similarly accept that homophobia is a natural, genetic, psychological condition where an individual is repulsed by the thought of a sexual relationship with a member of the same gender. Fair enough?

The point is: Let’ all try to be tolerant of each other’s natural proclivities. Shall we?

I, for one, have been greatly entertained by movies such as The Birdcage and Victor/Victoria. I think we need more of that from Hollywood.

For example: I’d like to see Hollywood do a re-make of some old classics, like Casablanca. For example, I can see Harrison Ford cast as “Rick” (formerly played by Humphry Bogart) and Alec Baldwin cast as “Elsa” (formerly played by Ingrid Bergman) we’ll call him “Eddy.” I can see Sylvester Stallone cast as “Eddy’s” husband – I mean “partner” – (formerly played by Paul Henreid).

I think the story would not only work well, and be highly entertaining, but serve to make everyone more understanding and tolerant of gays. The final scene in Casablanca, where Rick (Harrison Ford) walks off with the French Chief of Police (formerly Claude Rains – now played by John Travolta) would be perfect – the writers wouldn’t have to change a thing.

Also, just imagine what Hollywood could do with a similar re-make of The African Queen. I mean, the title is already perfect.

Ron wrote on Nov 8, 2008 9:58 AM:Since the word "Green" is a part of your name there...
"Greencinitan" @6:45 AM,

Might I make a suggestion?

I was pulling my Chevy Tahoe out of service in Car Country Carlsbad the otherday, and I noticed Nick Leibham signs still up?

Now, why would this be? From an enviromentalist like yourself?
You and your little green buddies need to get your.. selves out there, and pull them down. Who know's?
Maybe.. you can save em for the next go around? Environmentally speaking, of course.

Thanks Troy wrote on Nov 8, 2008 9:58 AM:I appreciate Troy's honest post. I am not an independent. I am a liberal. But I completely agree that the proof of any candidate's campaign is in the pudding. I voted for Obama because I want to believe he will try to do what he says he will try to do. I don't agree with every item that Troy wants from Obama, though I agree with many of them. I believe, for example, that we should get out of Iraq as soon as is reasonably possible, becuase we DID our job there, according to the Iraq people and their government. I believe that the word "terrorist" should not be used loosely, to describe any nation that isn't to our liking. I would expect, and hope, that Obama's administration DOES talk to Iran (because the vast majority of Iranians oppose Ahmadinejab and it is in our interest to align ourselves with that movement rather than against the whole nation). I hope that Obama DOES talk to the various players in Afghanistan and Pakistan (because we have turned our allies there against us, and our only hope in the region is to win them back). I assume that Obama WILL be a friend of Israel, but that this will not preclude him from facing the problems and needs of the Palestinian people. I expect Obama to win our allies all over the world back, not by coercion or threats, but by a desire to promote common values, like we used to. I want Obama to work hard to get bipartisan efforts at solving some of our economic problems, but I also understand that this is the equal responsibility of the Republican leadership. The GOP can, if it chooses, decide to obstruct every Democrat offering in the Senate, for example. Will they? Will they support more regulation of our major industries, to avoid one huge source of our current mess? I hope this, too, has impact on Troy's decisions. And I expect Obama to undo some of Bush's more blatant efforts to spit on the Constitution. Less secrecy. Close Gitmo. End torture. End warrantless wiretaps. Follow the decisions of the Supreme Court. End the use of the Justice Department as a political apparatus. Those are my minimums. Thanks, Troy.

hardtack wrote on Nov 8, 2008 10:17 AM:Ron:
This is just to let you know that I appreciated your efforts yesterday to explain the free market. It’s tough, because it’s not what people want to hear.

If you are not already familiar with him – I recommend you google George Reisman (Prof of Economics at Pepperdine Univ.) And check out his website.

Best regards,
hardtack

sdraoul wrote on Nov 8, 2008 10:19 AM:DD continues to propagandize with false information.

The 91 percent income tax marginal rate that John Kennedy lowered wasn’t President Eisenhower’s as DD falsely claims. His claim is false, false as most of what he tries to write about. Though wordy, he usually is totally off the mark and levels charges of slander against those who expose him for the word charlatan that he is.

The 91 percent income tax rate was Franklin Roosevelt’s and Harry Truman’s attempts to soak the rich and to “redistribute” wealth. Eisenhower wanted to lower the rate. His problem was that except for the first two years of his two terms as President, Democrats controlled the House of Representatives and controlled the senate during both terms.

The Constitution requires that only the House can generate “Revenue” bills, thus the Republican House generated bills to lower the income tax rates. The Democrat Senate, however, never even called for hearings on those bills. They stopped the bills for purely partisan reasons. They were not about to give Eisenhower credit for lowering tax rates.

When Kennedy was elected the Democrat House and Senate voted to lower the rates so Democrats would get the credit, which they did.

Partisanship kept the income rates up and they were not Eisenhower’s. High and confiscatory income tax rates are a Democrat copyright. This has been true since Woodrow Wilson sponsored the income tax to begin with.

As usual, DD’s propaganda is nothing but partisan propaganda and untrue.

political signs wrote on Nov 8, 2008 10:25 AM:Political signs on your PRIVATE property can stay up if you live in the unincorporated parts of SD County. Info from County Zoning Department code #6562 EXEMPT ON-PREMISE SIGNS #H.

All other Political signs must be removed 10 days after the election. Per SD County Registrar of Voters.

Observer wrote on Nov 8, 2008 10:31 AM:I have to agree on most of the statements that Bill brought up regarding gay marriage even though I voted yes on prop 8. All benefits of marriage CAN be utilized in a civil union so there are no rights being denied. That hits to the core of this very hot debated issue. There is a certain criteria that has to be met in almost everything we do in our lives whether it be our jobs our education etc and I also feel that there is a certain criteria that must be met for it to be called a marriage. That right now is between a man and a women. Thats the criteria that has to be met. I have no hate or bigitry towards the gay population either when I say this.
This isuue will be debated for years Im sure. One other critical point that I also have to agree with Bill on this is that if gay marriage does pass some day it has to recognized in ALL 50 states. Chipping away from state to state on this seems weak and pointless.

Backcountry wrote on Nov 8, 2008 10:31 AM:Regarding the aragument over Democrat good-Republican bad. The Democrat party no longer exists; it has become the socialist party. The Republican party no longer exists because it has filled the vacuum left by the Democrats. Conservatives don't have a party. This is what happens when the people find out that by electing liberals they can vote themselves wealth from the politicians in exchange for votes, thus creating the entitlement society. Gopvernment just keeps going further to the left and creates the elite rich and the ignorant poor. The middle class is eliminated. Thank you Mr. Bush, the big spender for giving us Mr. Obama the big socialist.

On Track wrote on Nov 8, 2008 10:42 AM:The person who wrote Thanks Troy 9:58am Nov.8.08 is on track.

Every US politician has to get involved, think positively. And think
out of the box.

Talking to our "enemies" is a must. To do otherwise is a big mistake.

We the people must be involved. Put behind the red states blue states rubbish. We are the United States of America.

United we stand, divided we will fall. Country First.

To No on Hussein wrote on Nov 8, 2008 10:49 AM:Did you really mean to say "Bush may have mispronounced a few words, but he did not use notes and did not stutter and stammer." Have your doctor check your meds, somthing synaptic has gone terribly wrong.

stagflation wrote on Nov 8, 2008 11:23 AM:a blessing in disguise,obama won't be able to destroy this country due to this economic "crisis" but he will due alot of damage. He is a puppet for the radical left and the enemy within. God bless this country many people were duped by his eloquent speeches but we all know how he is without a telepromter , a stuttering clamoring fool

Karl wrote on Nov 8, 2008 11:38 AM:This is for Bob @ 9:18 AM, Wanda and everyone else who thinks Fox is the only Network that spins the news. Fox just doesn't spin it in your direction. If you really believe that Fox is the only one in this game, you are in the same boat as those you accuse but your paddles are going in the opposite directions.

Is Fox all spin, NO. Is CNN (ABC, NBC, CBS) all spin, NO. To discount one over the other is to be purely uniformed. Intellent people listen to both sides and realize the facts are somewhere in the middle or slightly to one side.

It's really too bad that the news cannot simply report the news. They have to look out for numero uno (the ratings).

Peace

Richard wrote on Nov 8, 2008 11:49 AM:Good post from 'Thanks Troy'. Thanks. And by the way the leaders in Iraq are already shifting closer to accepting an agreement with the U.S. to move forward, now that Obama is President-Elect. They openly said they would never have come close to agreeing with a plan if McCain, as an extension of Bush, would have won. Largely this is because Obama is better understood by strangers than Bush.

Today in History (expanded):
November 8, 1965 the U.S. 173rd Airborne in Operation Hump was decimated by a vicious Vietnamese force.

Comment: the leader who ordered the operation had no understanding of the fact that when a foreign army lands on anothers' soil, that they would assume that force was trying to conquer their country. If you don't communicate effectively with perceived enemies, then this will always be the case. If we had made it perfectly clear in Vietnamese, not English, what our forces exactly were there for, to defend South Vietnam and to intermediate peace, then the outcome of the invasion would have been considerably different. Same with Iraq and Iran. If you don't communicate at least your broad intended purpose clearly, then you pay the price later, where incorrect assumptions will always prevail and rule the actions of the uninformed. What was the war in Vietnam became, in Vietnam's view, the "American War', from lack of understanding of what concerned President Kennedy in the first place.

Honorable Veterans' Day

[and please allow our men to leave Iraq as quickly as possible; even Christian refugees from Iraq are protesting our presence there.]

Karl wrote on Nov 8, 2008 11:54 AM:Couldn't agree with you more Bill @ 9:19 AM. Our state is in deep doodoo financially and we keep electing the same fools, unbelievable. What is even more unbelievable is the fact that us moronic voters passed more spending packages last Tuesday.

Barack Obama won the election because most felt a change was warranted under the circumstances. Why didn't all the Obama supporters vote for change here in California? We have seen how the US economy can drag down the World economy and it is also fact that the California economy can drag down the US eonomy. Could it be because change really doesn't matter unless the change is from Republican to Democrat? I'd say that's pretty darn hypocritical. When will people realize that if the monies are not there, we cannot spend.

One thing that really torques my tutu are the masses that believe polititians when it comes to cuts. Polititians (mostly liberals) call axing projected increases and cola's a spending cut. Huh? An increase is an increase and a cola is an increase to this hick no matter how you spin it.

Wake up voters, you really can't be this stupid.

Peace

Karl wrote on Nov 8, 2008 11:56 AM:Right on Backcountry @ 10:31 AM

Peace

Apollo wrote on Nov 8, 2008 12:50 PM:Re: Backcountry (10:31 a.m.)
Perfect example of another Republican who is so out of steam, so completely devoid of being able to discuss issues of substance, that all he can do is call names.
Guess what, Backcountry:
There is already an official SOCIALIST Party in the U.S. which is an official party in the State of California.
It is not the Democratic Party (and you couldn't even type that name correctly, either).
If you want to try to claim that there is some similarity between the policies and platforms of the Socialist and Democratic parties, please tell us exactly which of their policies or ideas you think are similar.
Socialists are proud to be called Socialists and insulted to be called Democrats, Republicans or anything else.
Democrats are proud to be called Democrats and insulted to be called Socialists, Republicans or anything else.
In the absence of any specific example you are just calling names and, frankly, it is becoming tiresome.

Re: Karl (11:56 a.m.)
Frankly, Karl, when you cheer on these hollow name-callers, you put the lie to your pretense of civility.
You are just as low as he is.

Nick wrote on Nov 8, 2008 1:08 PM:As usual, my good buddy "Alf" calls it correctly. Couldn't have said it better.
Cheers, Nick

Crazy stuff wrote on Nov 8, 2008 1:20 PM:To call the Democratic party or Obama "socialist" is to not know the meaning of the word. If you look at the difference between the tax plans of Bush, McCain, and Obama, you will find differences of a few percent here, a few percent there. It's nothing but hysteria-promoting nonsense to say that few percent is the difference between "capitlism" and "socialism". The fact is, our system is somewhere between free market capitalist and socialist. It has elements of both. Very few Americans want either extreme. DD has this exactly right. We've seen that when nations embrace Communism, they fail. And when we've been closer to free market capitalism, we've failed horribly. So we will be in between, and anyone who calls this socialism is a free-market radical who is simply lying. That said, our political process has been that of fine-tuning the market-socialist dial. But turning the dial one degree to the left simply is not socialism and it's a propagandistic lie to say otherwise. Let's cut that nonsense out and get to work being Americans rather than fear-mongers.

Alf wrote on Nov 8, 2008 1:24 PM:Well, "Bill" at 9:16AM,
a post of yours with which I agree?!?!?!?
Who are you and what have you done to "BILL"?
Regards, Alf.

Gotta be federal wrote on Nov 8, 2008 1:25 PM:I agree that the gay marriage thing must not be state by state. It should be taken up federally. If the feds would grant gays that have a civil union the same exact rights and benefits of straights (which is not the case now), I would not have any problem voting for the word "marriage" being reserved for heterosexuals. Better still would be to have "civil union" be the ONLY term for the bond recognized by the state. Then "marriage" can be the property of religious institutions, which can and should marry anyone they wish in the eyes of their gods.

to Backcountry and Karl wrote on Nov 8, 2008 1:29 PM:If you travel the world, you'd be surprised to find that our closest allies who share out basic values think of our Democratic party as being to the right of their equivalent of Republicans. Since Reagan, we have drifted so far to the right (witness the incredible push for deregulation that has landed us in this mess) that we don't even recognize the words any longer. There is, you know, a Socialist party in the US. If you read up on it, you'd be surprised at how very, very different it is from our Democratic party, which is not very different from the Republicans. To think the Democrats are "far left" only means you've been taken in by right wing propaganda that's flourished since Reagan. You need to study history and the dictionary, in addition to world politics.

tjefferson wrote on Nov 8, 2008 1:35 PM:Allowing women to vote was depraved, according to U. S. officials in 1913. I was in Barnes & Noble this morning and opened a big book with 150 years of New York Times front pages. By chance I opened to a page for Oct. 1913. The lead story on that day reported that Lady Emeline Pankhurst was detained at Ellis Island and refused admittance to the U. S. for moral turputude (depravity). She was put on the next boat to England. Lady Pankhurst was a prominent English suffragette. She was visiting the U. S. to lend her support to the suffrage movement in the U. S. What was Lady Pankhurst's moral turputude, her great moral depravity? She believed that woman should be allowed to vote. The bible thumpers of her day found religious reasons and quoted the bible to argue against voting rights for women.
Things haven't changed much with the bible thumpers, have they? Allowing people of mixed races to marry, desegregation of public schools, civil rights for racial minorities and now same sex marriage for another minority. Bible thumpers were against them all. Shameful.

Focal Point wrote on Nov 8, 2008 1:37 PM:Mackeral[-] wrote on Nov 8, 2008 7:11 AM:
No doucment created by man is perfect.The authors are imperfect. If it was perfect, the constitution would not have needed amendments. But, there were amendments. I think that the Constitution is flawed. I have taken the oath various times. President Obama will not have a problem at all.

Alf wrote on Nov 8, 2008 1:37 PM:Well, "Observer" at 10:31AM,
gays want to achieve the same legal status as married with full faith and credit anongst the states and, I believe that this is true, don't really care what it is called.
The snag is that almost all states will not do that, they come up with "marriage lite" or "almost as good as marriage" or some other half-baked, half-notion, half-behinded, second rate or far worse thing, toss it at them and say "be glad we even let you come close to being treated equally" piece of garbage.
Anyone other than blue-eyed blonds are next.
Regards, Alf.

To No on Husseein wrote on Nov 8, 2008 1:38 PM:“I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any seances,” he joked.

It actually wasn’t Nancy Reagan who was linked to conversations with the dead; it was Obama’s top Democratic challenger for the presidency, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y."


Can you believe he did this????

This country is in BIG BIG BIG trouble!

Just reported that he called Nancy Reagan to apologize.

OMG…we’re in BIG TROUBLE EVERYBODY!!!

DD Wiz wrote on Nov 8, 2008 1:45 PM:More Historical Spin from "sdraoul"
The post from "sdraoul" (10:19am) looks like he is still clinging to the bitter fruit of his sour grapes from all his failed election predictions and rejected candidates, along with a generous serving of his usual historical revisionism.
In this case, it is not so much that his facts are wrong, only slightly off this time (mostly incomplete), his problem is the spin and his refusal to put facts in historical context. I still do think "sdraoul" knows better and is just putting us through the spin cycle.
I stand by my comment. When JFK proposed (and LBJ enacted after his death) a reduction in the top marginal rate (omission of which qualifier mirepresents the nature of the tax), they reduced the EISENHOWER tax.
"sdraoul" is correct that the tax was implemented by FDR/Truman as an emergency war measure during extraordinary times (or maybe he doesn't count WWII and the immediate post-war as an extraordinary condition).
The fact that Eisenhower, with several years of a Republican legislative majority, perpetuated this through EIGHT YEARS of peacetime made it his policy -- the EISENHOWER TAX.
By the time JFK became president, it was the EISENHOWER TAX POLICY.
Context, "sdraoul," context. And please, spare us the spin zone.
Peace, prosperity and sunshine to all, DD Wiz

Focal Point wrote on Nov 8, 2008 1:47 PM:Prophet brain cells have died. Obama can not fix anything right now. He has no power. President Bush has the power. If you want it fixed right now, address your desire or command to that august monarch right now. President-elect is correct when he stated that it will take, time,effort and sacrifice. It is about time we had a President who will be telling us the truth instead of 935 lies.

Ron wrote on Nov 8, 2008 1:48 PM:Per-zactly put...
"Backcountry" @10:31 AM,

Now, according to that great scholar, and guitarist Ted Nugent, henceforth to be known as "The Nuge."

Said exactly that same thing, that the
Democrat party as originally founded, no longer exists. And it has become the Socialist party. He would refer to this as the "jet plane to socialism."

On the otherhand, we now have the "Me Too" Republican party. Within the political structure as founded by FDR, and the age of interest group politics,
the former Republican party also no longer exists because it has filled the vacuum left by the former Democrats.
He, that would be "The Nuge", refers to this as the slow boat to socialism.
Now, of course, speeded up by "Compassionate Conservatism" of the Bush years.
Which is a total Non Sequitur to real Conservatives, because we know that real compassion happens voluntarily, and not by government fiat.

Hence, "Backcountry" is exactly right,
real Conservatives don't have a party.

Now, in a weird sort of way, this is exactly Adam Smith, but backwards.
When the constituents realize by electing careerist politicians who will then use the public treasury along their own career path, you end up in bankruptcy.
Through pernicious prevarication and propaganda meant to corrupt and undermine a society, We have been told that: "Yes, we can have it all."
And alas, we have entered the age of the entitlement society. Where the Government, which by now has become a Big Daddy figuire, just keeps going doling out, so politicians can save their seat, and the "people's votes are always right."
That is Mob rule, we do not have a pure democracy, we have a Representative Republic, where it is believed those we send as public servants will use their political power over us cautiously, sparingly, and with all due diligence toward the greater good of the society.
But sadly, what we have devolved into, and Smith should be turning over in his grave at this thought, but the self-interest of these careerist polticians has far exceeded the power to which they were handed, except by a society that has been convinced, it's, the Government's, job is to fund them, as individuals by whatever means necessary.
This is hardly the direction our Founders sought for their posterior.

To Karl wrote on Nov 8, 2008 1:54 PM:We are stupid, but not stupid enough that we spell the word politician as polititian, or can't tell the difference between the desire (need) for change and the desire to label politicians and other Americans (as you are obviously obsessed with). Of what use is your negative moaning when it's obvioulsy time to either fish or cut bait.

Focal Point wrote on Nov 8, 2008 1:55 PM:Karl[-] wrote on Nov 8, 2008 11:38 AM:
I agree with Karl. I remember when the news and nothing more. There was seperated programing for documentaries, social observation and political cometary. But, alas, Kart, Huntley and Brinkley are long gone. We have our memories.

Gotta Wonder wrote on Nov 8, 2008 1:57 PM:PROPHET[-] wrote on Nov 8, 2008 6:44 AM:
I see that Chuck has a new blog name. Just goota laugh.

OBSERVATION wrote on Nov 8, 2008 2:06 PM:Obama Is Seen Inheriting Worst U.S. Recession Since Reagan Era

By Bob Willis

Nov. 8 (Bloomberg) -- President-elect Barack Obama will inherit the worst recession since Ronald Reagan’s second year in the White House, economists said as figures showed U.S. payrolls plunged by more than half a million the past two months.

Ron wrote on Nov 8, 2008 2:09 PM:Interesting diatribe there by...
"Republicans lost" @7:27 AM,

Now, let me see if I have this right?

"Republicans lost the election because of their rejection of Bush's and McCain's immigration plans of a few years ago."

So, by not dismissing long standing rule of law, and opening the borders wide open...
They lost?

By not playing to