There are several reasons we have a terrible government now, but a media which refuses to report the truth, and insists on reporting falsehood in the name of "balance" is one of them.
Some of you may remember that Bush was actually crowned back in 1998 by Time or Newsweek as the next President. Savvy observers knew that he was going to be the next President in 1999, and also knew that he would wage war with Iraq ( I didn't know that, but I had a friend who predicted that with certainty well before 2000).
Now, with halfway fair reporting, McCain would have been the nominee, for better or worse: Bush was a blithering idiot with  no knowledge of national or international politics. He couldn't answer the simplest questions without getting rattled---unless he was fed answers before.

Without Bush, we would not have had Obama in 2008.  Whatever merits he has, he is NOT remotely progressive in his politics. He would have been considered a mainstream Republican 35 years ago--not even a liberal Republican.
He was able to hide his true stripes from many voters by a brilliant campaign. I"m still in awe of the "look at the website" trick.

With decent media coverage, no amount of campaign cash could make up for a lousy candidate.
One of the purposes of political blogs was to correct the media's imbalance; it's clear that in this aim the left blogosphere is a total failure.
The very structure of modern news shows doesn't allow for correction, because there are only viewpoints, not facts.

Work to get public financing for campaigns and vote against every incumbent (unless they actually DID something spectacular on your issues) so they recognize that they are not going to get re-elected just because they raised lots of money any more. I want my representative spending his/her  time on the issues not on raising their next campaign coffer. AND try to change or start a new party. One always needs a long term plan too.

But anyone who listened closely, who paid attention to what he was saying, to what he was doing (FISA vote, anyone?), knew his presidency was not going to usher in a new age of change, or a return to sanity.  Even the media made the  mistake of thinking - and reporting - that these huge crowds meant something, when, in fact, all it meant was that the sales job was working.  And, as with many infomercial sales jobs, by the time people found out they'd bought a product that didn't work as they had been psychologically led to believe, Obama was taking the oath.

Here's the thing, James: when one believes in something as a matter of principle, one doesn't back down because there is too much opposition to it.  When there is opposition to something one believes is right, one fights for that policy, one leads on that policy.  "Oh, well, I tried," is not the attitude of someone who ever believed in the position he took.  But taking it got him some votes, and that's all that ever mattered.

The things all of them say in a campaign have to be taken with a pretty big grain of salt; the tale of anyone's commitment to the issues is told in what they do, and have done - but no one who supported Obama wanted to look at his thin record, his penchant for letting others do the grunt work so he could swoop in at the end and take the credit, his cutthroat way of clearing the electoral field, his disinterest in doing the work his committee assignments called for.

It's the people who go to the polls and vote, so we're the ones who get the sweet talk and seduction; but when it's time to go about the business of governing, ours are not the voices that are heard.  Access and accommodation are the province and privilege of the corporate insiders, and we aren't going to put them on the same level with us common folk until elections are financed 100% with public dollars.  I will likely be long-dead and buried by the time that happens - if it happens.

As to what to do, that's the big question many of us are trying to answer; neither of the legacy parties really has the interests of the people at heart, even if they are happy to take our money when we mistakenly think our support of this candidate or that candidate is going to change things.

WASHINGTON -- In a rare, bipartisan defeat for President Barack Obama, the Senate voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to keep the prison at Guantanamo Bay open for the foreseeable future and forbid the transfer of any detainees to facilities in the United States.
Democrats lined up with Republicans in the 90-6 vote that came on the heels of a similar move a week ago in the House, underscoring widespread apprehension among Obama's congressional allies over voters' strong feelings about bringing detainees to the U.S. from the prison in Cuba.

Do you think the numbers will be any different today, I don't.

But it must be that Obama is secretly sending the Democrats signals to vote against his wishes, IOW, because the Dems are voting No, Obama must be against closing Gitmo.

Yes, an argument can be made that Congress had strongly opposed closure, but anyone who says that that's the end of the discussion is merely buying into the lame -- but increasingly popular -- excuse that the presidency is in fact a very weak office and its occupant highly constrained in terms of changing course.  A danger here is that this can lead to a furtherance of the feeling that empowering an ever-stronger unitary executive is the way to go.  And that way leads to tyranny, if we're not there already.

But, if you have believed them in the past, you must have had a very disappointing life.

Then again, at the moment you are campaigning, just like the GOP. Obama cannot keep his promises, Democrats cannot keep their promises, vote GOP and your taxes will never rise, the sun will shine every day, and everyone will be rich and happy.

Awwww..

There are many facets to "scientific creationism" and the movement can be discussed in any of several ways. However, it is best viewed as a loosely connected group of fundamentalist ministries led largely by scientifically incompetent engineers

From "An Engineer Looks at the Creationist Movement"
which appeared in the Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Science.

Come to think of it, that is almost identical to what the the AGW boys at EAU and Mann at (now) Penn State do.

BTW - You seem fascinated about Creationism. Having some second thoughts about evolution?

They show a pattern of self dealing, concealment and obstruction.

They do not address the science, but they do reveal the lack of scientific disciple, multiple qualifiers and vaguely supported statements.

I recommend you read: "Climategate The Crutape Letters."

All that has been asked is that, since the AGW's want to change and take over the world, that they start over using mutually agreed to data.

That the hoaxers refuse says all we need to know.

And telling me that a jury composed of fellow AGWers has decreed that all is well is.....well...laughable.

You see, you have no real knowledge so all you can do us choose a position that you like and then try and scream anyone who disagrees with you down.

That doesn't work with people who have a firm belief in real science and demand proof.. from the hoaxers and their doctor... before they agree to radical surgery. Second opinions are required in many areas of life.

As Reagan said, "Trust but verify."