Comments about ‘Letter: President Obama's changes will push the country back’

Oh, please, spare me. Vague rhetoric with no substance. This has been the entire Republican campaign this year, making absurd allegations, backed by nothing, and offering absolutely zero in terms of ideas and specifics. Cheap shots from the cheap seats.

"The things that have made this country so great have not changed."

I disagree. From the freeing of slaves to women's sufferage to worker rights to civil rights to the GI Bill -- these are all NEW freedoms that have HAVE come about from progressives pushing to make this country even greater and better to grant its citizens better opportunities.

It was progressives that purchased the Louisiana Purchase that eventually became the great "bread basket" of America. It was progressives that bought Alaska from the Russians that resulted in great oil reserves for America. It was progressives that cleaned up the environment from polluting businesses so people could live healthier and freer. It was progressives that challenged this nation to go to the moon to unleash technological innovations. It was progressives that allowed businesses to operate on the government-built Internet, so people could make money, communicate, and live freer.

Significant improvements of our nation have come from progressives, seeking to change the tyranny of the status quo that limited citizens' freedoms, resulting in new opportunities for America!

The only problem with this writer's fantasy solution is that if you have small, limited government and large, unlimited corporate power, everyone eventually loses, even the wealthy.

Wouldn't it be great if we could just do a controlled experiment over the past 3 years and in one group take the approach that the President took, and in the other take the approach of just get the government out of the way and lower spending...oh wait we did that one was America, and the other was Europe. Who has positive gdp growth now and who has a second recession?

What is not supportive of capitalism and free enterprise about saving 1.1 million jobs in a specific industry? What is not capitalistic about cutting taxes for all of middle America, and every small business?

Please stop with the family values line. Love of family doesn't begin or stop at the voting booth. That line simply shows your lack of exposure to the world.

The principals that guide the success of this country don't change, but Mr. Barton's suggestion that President Obama does not hold to those principals is wrong. Look at his demonstrated concern and affection for his family. Look at his concern for the economic circomstances of the poor and middle class. And if the author looks hard enough, he will even find evidence of the President's interest in making government more efficient. The issue isn't so much that government should be "smaller", but more that it should be no larger than necessary to meet the country's needs.

Honesty and transparency are also founding moral attributes. How honest has Mr. Romney been in his campaign? When confronted with critical reviews of some of his campaign claims by fact checker's, Romney has doubled down on widely acknowleged erroneous and dishonest claims, and then tried to discredit or ignore the fact checkers.

So, Mr. Barton, who really is holding the higer moral ground, and faithful to the moral principals that are the foundation of our represtative democracy?

We get it. You're not voting for President Obama. My guess is you wouldn't do so regardless of the economic circumstances of the nation.

The problem with conservative opinions is that they won’t ever give any specifics and the broad meaning words they use.

This morning watching a bit of an interview of Romney, the interviewer repeatedly ask for specifics of the words Romney was using, like closing loopholes. Each time Romney sidestepped the question and went to the broad, non specific, explanations.

Where is the principal of limited government specified. Where and what are the family values, where is the principal of free enterprise system, even if it exists, given and where are the rules that individual freedom and responsibility are inflexible. If it is the principals of old that you look at, which way are you facing.

Progress may depend on the direction you are looking.

Push the country back? If it weren't for progressives, republicans would still be living in caves and wearing loin-cloths. For some reason you guys want to move back to a hunter-gatherer scenario where wives are possessions instead of equals.

Obama and values? President Obama is a multi-millionaire, but his brother George lives in a slum in Africa. President Obama is supposedly a "constitutional expert", but he has pushed laws that dictate that a Church dispense birth control and perform abortions - strictly contrary to the 1st Amendment. He has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution and to see that laws are enforced, but he refuses to endorse DOMA and he refuses to prosecute illegal aliens.

Values?

He preaches class envy and hatred from his "bully pulpit". He tells college students that they shouldn't have to pay for their education. He encourages squatters to camp out in public parks instead of getting a job and paying for their education. He tells us fairy tales about the "rich", when he is one of the 1% himself, but you don't see him knocking on the treasury's door and offering to give away any of his millions.

He's convinced 47% of Americans that some "rich guy" owes them.

How about Fast and Furious? How about Bran Terry? How many lies can his administration tell before America wakes up?

I agree fully with this writer's comment: "More of the changes that he is trying to push will not move us forward but promises to take us further back."

His policies will take us further back. Back toward the prosperity we enjoyed before President Cheney and his little friend ruined America. Back toward the prosperity for the middle class that Mitt is promising to destroy.

It's just too bad we can't go all the way back to the days of Reagan and undo all the harm tinkle down upon us economics has caused.

And once again JT is spewing his regurgitation of Limbaughisms.

>Obama does not recognize that limited government, family values, a strong free enterprise system and individual freedoms and responsibility.
What I heard was President Obama standing up for all those things, except 'limited government.'
And here's the thing. Conservatives want a 'smaller government.' They've never defined what they mean by that, but they are consistent in saying it. So naturally enough, they assume that liberals want bigger government. But we don't. We could care less. What liberals want is effective government. Would that be bigger? Sometimes. Smaller? Sometimes.
We would point out that government grew in size under Reagan, and got smaller under Bill Clinton.

while I have difficulty in defending Bush and his presidency, I cannot remember a president that demonstrated such a lack of consideration for the rule of law as Barack Obama. With his countless executive orders that bypass congressional intent to his lack of leadership and total disregard for any restraint on spending, it is my opinion that another four years with him in the White House would cause irreparable damage to this country.

Although he didn't say much in his convention speech other than act as cheerleader, indications are that his plans appear to include adding even more 'takers' in our society without any regard for the likelehood of a gradual decrease in the 'givers'.

Uhhh - Watchman

Maybe you need to do some research.

Bush = 290
Obama = 134

Even if Obama continues scoffing at his present rate, he will still come short of the mark set by his predecessor.

But I guess you already knew that President Cheney and his little buddy were champions when it came to disregarding the law -- and ethics.

Even so, the champion in recent years was that paragon of Conservatism -- St. Ronald the Reagan. He scoffed at the law 380 times.

Bill Clinton reminded us last week about something called "arithmetic." Maybe you need a review of the subject. It's very easy to learn the truth. Just Google "executive orders by president."

Or is it too much of a bother to learn the truth?

When republicans are in charge they create new security agengies, start wars and baloon the national debt.

So stop with the republican good, democrat bad blabbering.

Can we talk about reality? If you remember where it is?

one old man..watchmans approach to things is exactly why I think in the end the President will be re-elected. Facts are not on their side, so they just make stuff up. It didn't take a genius to notice that the fact checkers went wild around the republican convention and were silent as church mice around the democratic convention. I'm sure watchman thinks that's because of the liberal media..but you didn't even hear anything from Fox about facts. There whole pitch was Obama is trying to divide the nation. Look at the polls from the end of this week. Even the Republican leaning polls have moved the President ahead. The lies are catching up with them.

Time to review the rules of the game.

The name of the game is SURVIVAL. It is based upon the prime directive of every living creature, especially humans. No matter how we got here, that single rule is branded upon every cell of our bodies. We have no choice but to play the game by the rule.

Humans seem to think that the best strategy is to gather as much “stuff” as possible and so develop all kinds of schemes to that end. But in the end all fail and all humans die.

Ultra Bob

"The problem with conservative opinions is that they won’t ever give any specifics and the broad meaning words they use."

Apparently we need be specific instead of being general like we should be just to satisfy you. True conservatives aren't conceited and aren't going to write 2,000 page legislation no one will likely read including the President who signs it because we understand we don't need to. Simple and general is good and complicated and specific is bad. The reason the U.S Constitution is so short on specifics is because our founding fathers weren't conceited.

Eric Samuelsen,

"And here's the thing. Conservatives want a 'smaller government.' They've never defined what they mean by that, but they are consistent in saying it. So naturally enough, they assume that liberals want bigger government. But we don't. We could care less. What liberals want is effective government. Would that be bigger? Sometimes. Smaller? Sometimes."

Translation: Effective government means exactly what you want it to be. It's bigger when liberals want it to be and smaller when they want it to be. Limited means limited by the constitution.

@j thomas
why should we consider the arguments about the morality of Obama by someone that has bared false witness about our president . I am afraid you suffer greatly;y from a massive credibility gap sorry.

Push the country back? You mean into huge debt - already there. Futile war in Afghanistan - already there. A medical scheme that is unfunded and not universal - already there. Crony capitalism that crowds out sustained growth - already there. "Job, jobs, jobs" - nothing there. Taxing for political reasons, not economic - done that. A White House run by lobbyists - that's done, too. Only 47% of the population paying taxes - goal achieved. Huge unemployment - it's 23 million with the WH bragging about creating 96,000 jobs when 3 times that many are needed to keep up with population growth. A chief executive with few ideas except the tired ones that have proven ineffective. Where to go now but up and the prez will be the first to claim credit?